define child desertion

• Awards Season
• Big Stories
• Pop Culture
• Video Games
• Celebrities

Hard to Believe Facts About Married… with Children

Love and marriage, love and marriage — Married… with Children is one of those shows 90’s kids will never forget. Raunchy jokes, hilarious characters and plenty of reasons to laugh are what defined the popular sitcom.

Years have passed since the show’s last episode was aired, and new details continue to be revealed from the cast as well as the producers. Wait until you hear what the original cast had to say about a possible Married… with Children reboot!

Meghan Markle Grew Up on the Set of the Show

A little-known fact about Married… with Children is that Ed O’Neill actually has a strong connection to new duchess Meghan Markle. Her father, Thomas Markle, was the show’s director of photography, and Markle frequently visited the set after school.

She admitted that being on the show’s set was controversial, saying “There were a lot of times my dad would say, ‘Meg, why don’t you go and help with the craft services room over there? This is just a little off-color for your 11-year-old eyes.'” We can definitely see why!

The Opening Credits Had a Surprise Cameo

The intro to the show is fairly simple, and if you were a 90’s kid, the theme song is probably stuck in your head right now. Sorry about that. If you go back and rewatch the season one opening credits, you might notice the clip of the interstate with cars.

In the second shot of the interstate, you might notice a very familiar car. It belongs to the movie National Lampoon’s Vacation . Yes, that’s right — that entire shot was taken from the movie, and the iconic station wagon made it onto Married… with Children .

The Show Spawned Some Spin-Offs

Married… with Children was such a success, the creators wanted to move forward with several spin-offs. Three, to be exact. Top of the Heap was the most successful spin-off of the iconic sitcom. It focused on the show’s side characters, Charlie Verducci and his son, Vinnie, who was played by sitcom legend Matt LeBlanc.

Bud and Kelly Bundy both made appearances on the show, but they were only minor background characters in a couple of episodes. Although it was a semi-successful sitcom, the Bundys were never seen together on the show.

Peggy Was a Pure Parody

It may look like Peggy was the ultimate 60’s housewife, but that’s because Katey Sagal insisted she look that way. The idea for Peggy’s look came from Sagal herself, not the producers.

During her audition process, she won over the producers’ hearts when she brought her own Peggy wig, showing she definitely understood the vision for the character. She really wanted to portray Peggy as a parody of the stereotypical housewife, and it definitely paid off. Peggy Bundy had an amazingly over-the-top fashion sense that just worked for some reason.

Michael Richards Auditioned for Al Bundy

Ed O’Neill wasn’t the only one who really wanted to play the notorious 60’s dad Al Bundy. Yep, before he was Kramer on Seinfeld , Michael Richards auditioned for the leading male role on Married… with Children . The fact that he didn’t make the cut is what actually led him to his Seinfeld role!

In a two-hour-long Married… with Children documentary, the casting director revealed that Richards wasn’t right for the role. A few years later, he was also a casting director for Seinfeld, and he was looking for someone to play Kramer. He couldn’t have done better than casting Richards for the part?

Kelly and Bud Looked a Lot Different in the Pilot

Don’t worry about not remembering a different Kelly and Bud, because the original pilot never actually aired. The siblings were originally going to be played by actors Tina Caspary and Hunter Carson. Things didn’t work out, and they were replaced by Christina Applegate and David Anthony Faustino.

Caspary didn’t really have the right chemistry with the rest of the cast, and neither did Carson. A few years later, Caspary quit acting completely and decided to pursue dancing instead. According to IMDb, Carson also left acting behind in 2011 to focus on the behind the scenes art of filmmaking.

The Show Had a Different Name

Shows’ titles sometimes change, especially when they are first in production. Married… with Children isn’t the only one that went through this change, but this particular working title raises a lot of questions that no one but the producers can answer.

The original working title was Not the Cosbys, and it’s certainly understandable that it was better to change the name. Not much else has been revealed about Not the Cosbys , but it’s safe to assume the producers wanted to make it clear the Bundys were not a Cosby-like — considered ideal — family.

A Small Decision Changed Ed O’Neill’s Career

It’s hard to imagine Al Bundy as anyone other than Ed O’Neill. Apparently, it was pretty easy for him to get the iconic role. He made a simple choice that ultimately changed his career.

During his audition, O’Neill decided to walk through the front door with slumped shoulders and a typical Al Bundy sigh. That was it. That’s all he had to do to make the casting director fall in love with him. Imagine if he hadn’t made that choice during his audition. It’s an important lesson about how a small decision could change your life forever.

The Show Faced a Lot of Controversies

Because of the show’s raunchy humor and somewhat sexist jokes, the Bundy family faced a lot of criticism. Although it’s true that in modern times, Married… with Children might not be so well received, wait until you hear about a woman who made it her mission to get the show canceled.

Even before that, Fox officials had to apologize for an episode where a young woman is shown removing her bra at a store. The producers refused to back down and continued to stay true to Al Bundy and the rest of the gang’s really questionable character.

An Angry Viewer Tried to End the Show

Terry Rakolta was a viewer who really, really didn’t like the show. In 1989, she launched a campaign to get Married… with Children off the air. “I care that there are advertisers out there paying the freight for this. They’re taking my dollars and putting them into softcore pornography.”

The reason behind her statement was a specific episode that revolved around Peggy’s bra. At the time, showing that kind of garment on national TV at 8:30 p.m. on a Sunday was considered highly inappropriate.

It Was Fox’s First Primetime Show

Married… with Children definitely made history, especially since it was Fox’s first primetime show. The network launched the sitcom on April 5, 1987. It had 259 original installments and was considered the longest-running live-action show in the network’s history.

Although Fox did have plenty of things to worry about, considering the show’s edginess, the show definitely put the network on the map, as it competed with other iconic 80’s and 90’s sitcoms of the time. The show averaged an impressive weekly viewership of 15 million, thanks to its airing strategy.

Al Bundy’s Legacy Lives On

Because Married… with Children was such a huge sitcom hit, it clearly made plenty of history, not only for Fox but also for the TV industry as a whole. Al Bundy skyrocketed Ed O’Neill into the A-list acting world, and the character left quite a lasting mark — a physical mark, actually.

Ed O’Neill’s Hollywood Walk of Fame star is actually located in front of a shoe store. Considering Al Bundy was a shoe salesman, this doesn’t seem like a coincidence. If the placement wasn’t planned, that’s a pretty impressive coincidence!

The Cast Was the Last to Know About Cancellation

Most of the time, TV show casts are completely aware when their show is about to get canceled, but that wasn’t the case for the cast of Married… with Children . When FOX decided to cancel the show, they didn’t notify them beforehand.

In fact, Ed O’Neill revealed that he learned about it while he was on vacation. The news was read to him by a couple sitting nearby! Christina Applegate also heard about the news from her friends, rather than from the network itself. Come on, Fox! Be respectful. When you decide to cancel a show, notify the show’s cast members first.

Katey Sagal Hid Multiple Pregnancies

Sagal became pregnant three times during the show’s 10-year run. Her first pregnancy was supposed to be written into one of the episodes, but, unfortunately, she miscarried. This made the show decide to rewrite Peggy’s storyline.

Sagal got pregnant again three years later and once again a year after that. Both of her successful pregnancies were completely hidden from the audience, and no one really knew about them until the birth was announced in the news. Ah, the joys of celebrity pregnancy before social media. It seems impossible today, doesn’t it?

The Mysterious “Lost” Episode Didn’t Air in the U.S.

This show has plenty of raunchy secrets. One of the episodes was purposefully hidden from the U.S audience. It was supposed to air in 1989, but it remained unbroadcasted until 2002. Other countries were allowed to see it, but because of the storyline, the network had to pull the plug in America.

The story was all about the Bundys and Rhoades being on a motel sex tape, which, at the time, was considered to be a huge controversy. The episode is conveniently titled I’ll See You in Court , and when it finally aired, some of the lines were completely removed.

Al Bundy’s Legacy Wasn’t Always a Good Thing

In 1991, Ed O’Neill wanted to make sure he wasn’t only known forever as the funny and edgy Al Bundy. No one wants to be typecast, right? Well, he tried his hand at movies in a war film called Flight of the Intruder . He played a Navy captain, and there was absolutely nothing funny about the movie.

However, because of his involvement in the popular sitcom, the film’s test audience was unable to see him as anything other than Al Bundy — so they laughed. The role was reshot with another actor at the last minute.

Al Bundy Was a Real Person (Sort of)

Well, Al Bundy’s characteristics were made of real people. In order to perfect his controversial personality, O’Neill said he based his performance on a few family members and a high school friend. He revealed that none of the people would recognize themselves on the show, because his hometown didn’t receive the Fox network at the time of the show’s debut.

Considering just how raunchy Al Bundy was, we sincerely hope O’Neill was able to choose a variety of characteristics from said family members and friends. Imagine if Al Bundy were based on a single person!

Al and Peggy Were Almost Completely Different People

Seriously — the actors that were first considered for Al and Peggy Bundy were Sam Kinison and Roseanne Barr. Considering Roseanne’s sitcom success, this probably would have worked extremely well. At least, the producers of the show thought so.

When they offered the roles to the actors, they turned them down. Their managers said at the time that the actors were more focused on accepting roles in movies, not television. Although Roseanne Barr had a successful sitcom of her own, a role on Married… with Children would have definitely made history. But could anyone really replace Katey Sagal?

The Show Started with an Extremely Small Budget

Just like many shows, Married… with Children started with small budgets — so small, in fact, that some of the items you saw on TV were actually brought from the personal homes of cast and crew. This happened when Buck the dog went on a shopping spree in one of the earlier episodes.

Sagal revealed that she finally got to wear a better wig in season three, and that’s how she knew the show was doing well, and their budget was improving. She said she keeps Peg’s incredible wig in a box in her garage.

Ed O’Neill Had Some Secret Talents

Al Bundy may be a simple guy, but Ed O’Neill made sure he was completely different from his iconic TV persona. He received a black belt in Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu in 2007 and has been training for 22 years, which means he released all his Married… with Children frustrations onto the gymnasium floor.

Not only did he receive a Jiu-Jitsu black belt, but he received it from one of the Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu pioneers, Rorion Gracie. In the early days, O’Neill was also a pretty serious football player. He won so many times he received the nickname Ed O’Winner.

Some Castmates Hated Each Other

Remember Marcy D’Arcy? She was quite the character, wasn’t she? You either loved her, or you hated her, but one thing was certain. Al Bundy and Marcy didn’t seem to get along that well on screen.

Well, if you were able to detect that from your TV, you were also right in real life. Ed O’Neill actually revealed that he didn’t get along with Amanda Bearse (Marcy). The feeling must have been mutual because Bearse made sure O’Neill was the only Married… with Children cast member who wasn’t invited to her wedding.

The Show Never Won Any Emmy Awards

Believe it or not, the show never won any Emmy awards. That’s right — even though it was an incredible show, it never won TV’s top award. In fact, Married… with Children actually broke a record no one wants to break. It was the longest-running show that never won a single Emmy all the way until 2001. After that year, the title then belonged to Baywatch.

Married… with Children did win six other awards, including ASCAP Film and Television Music Awards and TV Land Awards. Both Katey Sagal and Ed O’Neill were also Golden Globe nominees, but neither one ever took home the prize for their fabulous roles on Married… with Children.

David Faustino Had a Crush on Alyssa Milano

Imagine going into work and frequently seeing Alyssa Milano. David Faustino, a.k.a. Bud Bundy, couldn’t believe his luck when he discovered that Who’s the Boss? was shot on the stage next door. He admitted to having a huge crush on Alyssa Milano, but he apparently never did anything about it.

Outside of his crush on Alyssa Milano, Faustino had an adventurous love life after marrying in 2004 and then divorcing three years later. In 2015, he welcomed his first daughter with girlfriend Lindsay Bronson.

Faustino Was Upset About Cancellation

David Faustino revealed that he felt the cancellation was extremely abrupt and uncalled for on Fox’s part. He was quoted as saying, “They made just a real hard, cold business decision, like, while we were shooting the last season. It was like, ‘Oh, no, we’re cutting it. That’s done.'”

He also noted that the entire cast took the news pretty hard, and many still can’t believe how it happened to this day. Faustino also acknowledged the frustration fans felt when they learned the show they loved wouldn’t get any closure after its final episode because it was cancelled mid-filming.

Ed O’Neill Was One of the Highest-Paid TV Actors of All Time

Although the show started off with small salaries and a small budget, it achieved incredible salary heights once it became successful. In fact, the main stars like Ed O’Neill made more than $500,000 per episode by the end.

Even more impressive, O’Neill officially made millions per episode when he joined the cast of Modern Family , but even on Married… with Children , he became one of the highest paid TV actors of all time. Some of the other highest paid stars include cast members from the popular TV show The Big Bang Theory.

The Show Had an Alternative Ending

After Ed O’Neill discovered that the show would end, he went straight to the producers to discuss his idea for the ending. It seemed pretty out there, but it was quite fitting, considering how abruptly everyone found out about the show’s cancellation.

O’Neill’s idea was that the Bundy’s would win the lottery — something they’ve always dreamed about. When they go out to celebrate, a tornado would hit and wipe out everything, including the Bundys. It was a dark idea, but, then again, when you have an edgy show like this one, it could have worked.

Is the Show Getting a Reboot?

Although the cast of the show has had several reunions on and off-screen, it’s clear that nobody really wants a reboot. It may be Fox’s longest-standing live-action show, but if they wanted to make a reboot, it would have to happen without the main cast.

Christina Applegate was really opposed to the reboot idea, saying “Look… no, I’m like, 20 pounds bigger and 40 years older than I was. I’m not going to put a Lycra dress on me at this point. No, it’s not going to happen.” She did say the cast frequently gets together for dinner and stays in touch.

Fox Capitalized on Strategic Airing

When Married… with Children first aired, it proclaimed itself a new voice on TV — an edgy voice — but what really helped the show lockdown its audience was the strategic timing. The network had to take into consideration the “Family Viewing Hour,” which was 8 p.m. at the time. Everything had to be family-friendly at that time and Married… with Children wasn’t.

Fox decided to completely ignore Family Viewing Hour rules in order to gain that new audience. It first aired at 8 p.m. and later at 8:30 p.m. The strategy worked beautifully, as the show’s raunchy humor was well received, especially by dads.

The Edginess Inspired Other Series

Because of Fox’s bold move to introduce slightly edgier shows to its audience, Married… with Children inspired plenty of other series that did the same. It paved the way for shows like Malcolm in the Middle and Arrested Development as well as The Simpsons and Family Guy.

Of course, edginess and raunchiness aren’t easy to pull off with the right balance. Many of the shows faced criticism for testing the humor limits of the public. Married… with Children became one of the greatest shows, and it was all thanks to the original edginess of Al Bundy and the gang.

The Cast Has Staggering Estimated Net Worths

We know that Ed O’Neill received more than $500,000 per episode during the last season. His estimated net worth stands at $65 Million, but he’s not the only one who is worth millions. In fact, most of the show’s cast went on to enjoy continued success after the show.

Katey Sagal’s reported net worth stands at $30 million, Christina Applegate is worth about $20 million, Amanda Bearse is worth $16 million, and David Faustino accumulated $5 million. Many of the show’s stars are still known and respected among Hollywood society.

MORE FROM ASK.COM

Call to Arrange A Consultation (801) 616-3301

What Is Actually Considered Child Abandonment?

Any boy or girl younger than 18 years old is considered a child in the state of Utah.

How Does Utah Law Define Child Abandonment?

It’s important to note that Utah legislature, Utah appellate courts, the Utah court of appeals, and the Utah Supreme Court, have defined child abandonment. The appellate courts’ definition of child abandonment is not the same as the definition given by the legislature in the statutes. There is a significant overlap, but either set of definitions can be used in court. It is easiest to start with the statutory definition, because its language is the most clear, and then from there to explain the appellate courts’ definitions, which are somewhat broader in scope and in the statute.

In the Utah code annotated 78A-6-508, the legislature gives grounds for termination of parental rights, which includes child abandonment. The legislature states that in determining whether a parent has abandoned their child, evidence of abandonment is:

• If a parent has failed to communicate with a child by mail, telephone, or otherwise for 6 months;
• If a parent has surrendered physical custody of a child to somebody else for a period of 6 months and has not manifested intention to resume physical custody to the child or to the person who has physical custody or intention to take physical custody back; or
• If a parent has not made arrangements for the care of the child. This means that if you just give someone else the physical custody of your child and take off for six months without really talking about taking the child back, that is evidence of abandonment.
• If a parent fails to show a normal interest of a parent in a child without just cause.

The previous points are a broad definition of abandonment. I would like to note that this last ground, which is just the failure to show normal interest, covers a wide variety of parental behavior. This variety can include things such as failure to attend court when issues of a child are being discussed, failure to attend visits, failure to attend therapy under certain circumstances, and so on. There are also very specific definitions for abandoning an infant child after birth, and that statute is 78A-6-316.

The Utah appellate courts have a slightly different definition of abandonment. A 1977 case called Summers Children vs. Wolfenstein defines abandonment as “conduct on the part of the parent which implies a conscious disregard of the obligations owed by a parent to the child, leading to the destruction of the parent–child relationship.” Any conduct that essentially results in that unique parent–child relationship being destroyed, by a conscious disregard of parental dues, can constitute abandonment, even if it doesn’t fit within the statutory definition discussed earlier. For example, in 1978, there was a case called Beigeman, wherein the court indicated that the abandonment might be based solely on a parent’s lack of visitation and communication with a child.

In 1983, there was a case called J. Children, and in that case, the court indicated that if a parent fails to act with intent to enforce their parental rights, that can also constitute abandonment. In that case, there was evidence, including proof that the mother had visited the children in the custody of the father only four or five times over a long period of time. It was alleged in that case that the father was interfering with her parenting time, but the court found that she had the opportunity to go into court to enforce her visitation but failed to do so. Her efforts to have parenting time with her children were halfhearted and supported a finding that she had abandoned her children. This finding was because she didn’t show the normal interest that a parent would have in their children, as she failed to avail herself of the court remedies that were available to her.

In 1991 there was another case called Getty DM, Bingham vs. MacArthur. Among other things, the Utah Supreme Court vacated the rights of the parent, whose conduct evidenced a conscious disregard for the parent’s obligations. Therefore, the parent has destroyed a meaningful parent–child relationship and must give way to the principle that the best interests of the child are paramount in determining whether to terminate parental rights.

For more information on Child Abandonment in Utah, an initial consultation is your next best step. Contact Us  online  or call us to arrange a consultation at  (801) 616-3301 today.

Contact Provo's Child Custody Lawyer Call Now

• Client Testimonials
• Location & Contact
• Practice Areas
• Make Payment Online

Law Office of Kelly Peterson 333 W 2230 N, Suite 319 Provo, UT 84604 Phone: (801) 616-3301 | Fax: (801) 877-0708 | Email: [email protected]

Copyright © 2023 Law Office of Kelly Peterson. All rights reserved. | Legal Disclaimer | Refund Policy

Speak Directly To a Lawyer Now

• Phone This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
• State * QLD ACT NSW NT SA TAS VIC WA
• Date * DD slash MM slash YYYY
• Time : Hours Minutes AM PM AM/PM
• Name This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Child Abandonment

Child abandonment is generally when a parent, guardian or someone with a parental responsibility for a child deserts that child with no regard for their physical or mental health or safety, and with the intent to relinquish all rights and responsibilities to them.

Legislation in almost every state and territory approaches child abandonment from a welfare perspective rather than criminal one, providing that an abandoned child can  be classified as in need of protection and care.

Section 364 of the Criminal Code 1899 makes it an offence for a person who has care of a child aged under 16 to cause harm to a child by “prescribed conduct”, when the person knows or ought reasonably to know the conduct could cause harm to the child.

“Prescribed conduct” includes failing to provide or trying to obtain adequate food, clothing, accommodation or medical treatment; deserting the child; or leaving the child without means of support.

“Harm” means any significant detrimental effect on the child’s physical, psychological or emotional wellbeing, whether temporary or permanent.

The maximum penalty is 7 years’ imprisonment .

Section 364A makes it an offence to leave a child unattended for an unreasonable time without supervision or care. The meaning of unreasonable depends on the circumstances. The maximum penalty is 3 years’ imprisonment.

Australian Capital Territory

Section 345 of the Children and Young People Act 2008 states a child is in need of care and protection in circumstances that include when those with parental responsibility for a child are dead, have abandoned the child, or cannot be found after reasonable inquiry.

Northern Territory

Section 20 of the Care and Protection of Children Act 2007 states a child is in need of care and protection in circumstances that include when “the child is abandoned and no family member of the child is willing and able to care for the child”.

New South Wales

Section 71 of the Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Act 1998 provides that a court can make a care order if it is satisfied a child is in need of care and protection for reasons that include when “there is no parent available to care for the child as a result of death or incapacity or for any other reason”.

South Australia

Section 18 of the Children and Young People (Safety) Act 2017 states a child is taken to be at risk of harm in circumstances that include when the child’s parents or guardians have “abandoned the child or young person, or cannot, after reasonable inquiry, be found”.

Section 4(1) of the Children, Young Persons and Their Families Act 1997 states a child is at risk in circumstances including when the parents or guardians of the child are “dead, have abandoned the child or cannot be found after reasonable inquiry”.

Section 162(1) of the Children, Youth and Families Act 2005 states a child is in need of protection on grounds that include when the child has been abandoned by their parents and after reasonable inquiries, the parents cannot be found and there is no other suitable person willing and able to care for the child.

Western Australia

Section 28(2) of the Children and Community Services Act 2004 states that a child is in need of protection in circumstances that include when child has been abandoned by their parents, and after reasonable inquiries, the parents cannot be found, and no suitable adult relative or other suitable adult can be found who is willing and able to care for the child.

Risk factors for child abandonment

There are identified risk factors that make a child vulnerable to abandonment. These include:

• social or geographic isolation of the child or their family;
• abuse, neglect or abandonment of a sibling;
• domestic violence;
• a caregiver suffering physical or mental health issues which impair their ability to care for the child;
• a caregiver’s abuse of alcohol or drugs.

For advice or representation in any legal matter, please contact Armstrong Legal .

This article was written by Sally Crosswell

Sally Crosswell has a Bachelor of Laws (Hons), a Bachelor of Communication and a Master of International and Community Development. She also completed a Graduate Diploma of Legal Practice at the College of Law. A former journalist, Sally has a keen interest in human rights law.

Different offences relating to assault exist in different states and territories of Australia. In all jurisdictions, there are common assaults…

Every state and territory of Australia has an offence of common assault. This is a summary offence of assault, which…

Many states and territories of Australia have an offence known as assault occasioning bodily harm. This is offence is more…

Sydney Office

Level 8 66 Goulburn Street Sydney NSW 2000

Melbourne Office

Level 13 575 Bourke Street Melbourne VIC 3000

Brisbane Office

Level 5 95 North Quay Brisbane QLD 4000

Canberra Office

Suite 2, Level 6 17-21 University Avenue Canberra ACT 2601

Perth Office

Suite 207 22 St Georges Terrace Perth WA 6000

Child Abandonment and the Law

As much as we as parents would like to convince ourselves that such a problem does not exist, the problem of child abandonment is one that is all too real. For some, the stress and responsibility of being a parent is just too much, and under great emotional stress and turmoil a parent struggling to cope may leave their children unattended.

For others, the responsibility of being a parent – especially at a young age – is too much and the desire to recapture their own lost youth results in a mother or father leaving their child or children alone.

The Law and Child Abandonment

Child abandonment is normally discovered if a child or children are left alone for a long period of time and are observed to be behaving in a manner not normally befitting of their behaviour. This may include the children wandering around the area in which they live at peculiar times, asking others as to the whereabouts of their parent or children misbehaving or causing trouble in order to seek attention.

What Happens if a Child is found to be Abandoned

In the absence of any other family, the child will be placed in foster care until a family member can be located or until the courts, in conjunction with social services, make a decision as to what course of action should be taken.

What is the Penalty for Child Abandonment?

If there are signs of such emotional distress, the parent will be required to undergo counselling and also may be instructed to participate in parenting classes while their child is looked after in foster care.

With all parties discussing the circumstances surrounding such abandonment, the parent may be reunited with their children, but may be supervised for a set period of time by social services and welfare officers until it is deemed appropriate to allow them to care for their children unsupervised.