Hanta Yo
Well-known member
What in the heck is wrong with this picture 
: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."
>
>
: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."
>
>
