• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Can You belieeeeeeeeve this!

Help Support Ranchers.net:

Hanta Yo

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 11, 2005
Messages
3,653
Reaction score
13
Location
South Central Montana
What in the heck is wrong with this picture :mad: :twisted: :!:


>Kids in legal gray area when gay couples split
>By Richard Willing, USA TODAY Tue Jun 21, 7:19 AM ET
>
>
>
>Two women in El Dorado County, Calif., Elisa Maria B. and her domestic
>partner Emily B., decided they wanted a family.
>So when Emily became pregnant by means of a sperm donor and gave birth
to
>twins in 1998, the lesbian couple faced a lifestyle choice. Emily, the
>couple decided, would stay home with the kids, one of whom had Down
>syndrome and required constant care. Elisa would be the breadwinner.
>
>
>
>Court papers omit the women's last names as standard procedure to
protect
>minors in cases about parenthood.
>
>
>
>The couple split up 18 months later. Elisa cut off financial support,
>prompting Emily and her children to go on welfare. El Dorado County
sued
>Elisa for child support, and she refused to pay. Her argument: I'm not
the
>children's father.
>
>
>
>Sometime this summer, the California Supreme Court will rule on the
case of
>Elisa and Emily and two similar appeals. At issue: In same-sex
>relationships, what makes a person a parent? Is it biology, existing
legal
>standards or whether that person acts like a parent?
>
>
>
>If Elisa and Emily had been an unmarried heterosexual couple, their
dispute
>probably would have been resolved already. In California and other
states,
>courts look at how such couples define their relationship to determine
>parentage.
>
>
>
>In California and elsewhere, unmarried same-sex couples that split up
have
>begun asking courts to treat them like heterosexuals in matters of
child
>custody.
>
>
>
>Wide potential impact
>
>
>
>Family law professor Ed Stein of Cardozo Law School in New York City
says
>the three cases are especially important because courts in other
states are
>likely to be guided by California's example.
>
>
>
>The cases come as assisted-reproduction technology becomes more
readily
>available to same-sex couples.
>
>
>
>The 2000 Census found about 92,000 same-sex couples in California. As
of
>December, though, only 29,000 had registered under a state law that
permits
>same-sex couples to enjoy most legal rights available to heterosexual
>couples. The law does not address the parental rights issues raised by
>these cases.
>
>
>
>And the use of assisted-reproduction technology, including donated
sperm,
>in vitro fertilization and donated fertilized eggs, is rapidly
increasing.
>The federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
>'
>' Disease Control and Prevention reports that 45,751 babies
were
>born through assisted reproduction in 2002 - a 120% increase from the
>20,840 in 1996.
>
>
>
>Similar legal cases are working their way through the courts in Utah,
>Georgia and Washington state. In Colorado last year, a state appellate
>court granted visitation to the former partner of a lesbian who had
adopted
>a baby from China. Courts in New York, Vermont and Pennsylvania have
ruled
>that both partners of same-sex couples who split may be considered
parents.
>
>
>
>"Reproductive technology is running so far ahead of law and policy,"
says
>Emily Doskow, a Berkeley, Calif., attorney who is editor of A Legal
Guide
>for Lesbian and Gay Couples. The California cases, she says, are a
sign
>"the law is trying to keep up."
>
>
>
>Variations in cases
>
>
>
>The California cases, which were argued May 24 before the state
Supreme
>Court in San Francisco, differ in their details:
>
>
>
>? In the case of Elisa B. and Emily B., a trial court agreed that
Elisa is
>not the twins' legal father and has no child-support obligations. A
state
>appeals court reversed that decision and said that Elisa should be
granted
>visitation rights as well as be compelled to help support the
children.
>
>
>
>At the California Supreme Court, Elisa's attorneys cited state law and
an
>earlier appeals court decision involving heterosexual couples to argue
that
>a non-biological partner cannot be considered a parent.
>
>In legal papers, Emily's lawyers pointed out that the couple had named
the
>children as beneficiaries on life insurance policies and had even
shared
>breast-feeding duties. Acting like a parent, they argued, creates
parental
>rights and duties.
>
>? In K.M. v. E.G., a case from Marin County, north of San Francisco, a
>fertilized egg from K.M. was implanted in E.G., who had twins in 1996.
When
>the couple broke up in 2002, E.G. denied K.M. access to the children.
She
>cited a waiver of parental rights K.M. signed when she donated her
egg.
>
>Relying on the waiver, two lower courts held that K.M. is not a legal
>parent. At the state Supreme Court, K.M.'s lawyers argued that how the
>couple lived - both functioning as parents - should trump the waiver.
To
>decide otherwise, K.M.'s lawyer Jill Hersh wrote, would harm the
children.
>
>? In Kristine H. v. Lisa R., a Los Angeles case, one partner in an
>eight-year relationship had a daughter through artificial
insemination.
>Before the girl was born, the birth mother, Kristine, sought and
received a
>court judgment that Lisa was the legal father and that both partners
were
>the parents.
>
>About 21/2 years after the child was born, the couple separated.
Kristine
>asked the court to void the judgment and rule that Lisa had no
visitation
>rights. An appeals court agreed with her. At the state Supreme Court,
>Kristine's attorney, Honey Kessler Amado, argued that she never
intended to
>grant her then-partner full paternity rights.
>
>Lisa's attorneys, Leslie Shear and Diane Goodman, countered that the
court
>judgment and Lisa's subsequent behavior as a parent entitled her to
>visitation.
>
>Adoption not involved
>
>None of the couples in these cases had adopted the children. Courtney
>Joslin, the lawyer for Emily B., says in all three cases, the
children's
>"birth into the world came about because of the intentional conduct of
two
>people" - the partners. "That's what we think is most important here,"
says
>Joslin, a senior staff attorney for the National Center for Lesbian
Rights.
>
>Stein, of Cardozo Law School, says that argument has a good chance of
>succeeding.
>
>During oral arguments before the state Supreme Court, Stein says, some
>justices seemed convinced that "fairness" requires them to extend
parental
>rights to gay, non-biological partners. Other justices, Stein says,
seemed
>to believe that extending parental rights strengthens families and
better
>protects children.
>
>"The (legal principle) here is that the reality of a relationship is
>determined by its functionality," Stein says. "That's a direction in
which
>the law, generally speaking, is headed."
>
>
 

Mike

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
28,482
Reaction score
0
Location
Montgomery, Al
At the risk of being labeled a conspirator, lawyers can come up with some wild ways to line their nests and fill their coffers. Same sex marriages and such can only create more legal wrangling.
 

Hanta Yo

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 11, 2005
Messages
3,653
Reaction score
13
Location
South Central Montana
Mike said:
At the risk of being labeled a conspirator, lawyers can come up with some wild ways to line their nests and fill their coffers. Same sex marriages and such can only create more legal wrangling.

No, kidding, and it makes me just plain ill.
 

nr

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
3,153
Reaction score
0
Location
DE
And with reproductive technology resulting in more twins/multiple births the number of children subjected to the legal ranglings soars. I agree with you, Hanta, it makes me ill.
 

Sierraman

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 7, 2005
Messages
299
Reaction score
0
Location
Texas
Hanta Yo said:
What in the heck is wrong with this picture :mad: :twisted: :!:
>
>

I see that these people want all the priveleges, and no responsibility.
 

Juan

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 15, 2005
Messages
752
Reaction score
0
Location
N.W.SD
"the three cases are especially important because courts in other
states are
>likely to be guided by California's example"


THIS IS WHAT IS REALY SPOOKY!!!!!
 

Juan

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 15, 2005
Messages
752
Reaction score
0
Location
N.W.SD
"the three cases are especially important because courts in other
states are
>likely to be guided by California's example"


THIS IS WHAT IS REALY SPOOKY!!!!!
 

Hanta Yo

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 11, 2005
Messages
3,653
Reaction score
13
Location
South Central Montana
Those poor children. Listened to a radio talk show a while ago and they interviewed an adult raised by a gay couple. It hurt that poor man to his very soul. What he had to put up with teasing from kids, being pushed around, etc. I knew it would come to this and no one seems to want to stop it. Montana voted NO in favor of gay marriages, but new bills kept popping up (in a subtle, back door way) that would reverse that. I guess it doesn't matter what the MAJORITY wants anymore. :mad: :evil: :mad: :evil:

Juan, you are so very right. Having CA set precedence scares the heck out of me. However, I was surprised that the 9th circus court voted in favor of the checkoff. You never know with CA....

Now there are kids born to gays and when gays split up (notice about 18 mos after baby arrives they split?!), no one wants the baby or take care of it. As nr said, more multiple births so we're not always talking about 1 baby. How awful!! I'm getting off my soapbox for the day. Thanks for all your input, I was just wondering how many of you were just as outraged as I was. :mad: :mad: :mad:

Hanta Yo
 

Latest posts

Top