California Supreme Court upholds the rights and responsibilities of same-sex parents
via SF Chronicle
San Francisco -- Lesbian and gay couples who plan for a family and raise a child together can be considered legal parents after a breakup, with all the rights and responsibilities of heterosexual parents, the California Supreme Court ruled today.
In three decisions that a gay-rights advocate described as historic, the court upheld the claims of motherhood by estranged lesbian partners who had been involved in relationships that resulted in children born by artificial insemination. The court noted that the three women had cooperated in conceiving and rearing the children in a family setting and, thus, had the right of parenthood under the law - from the privilege of visitation to the responsibility of child support payments.
"We perceive no reason why both parents of a child cannot be women," said Justice Carlos Moreno, author of all three rulings. He said the court's statement in a 1993 surrogate-parent case, that a child can have only one natural mother, was limited to situations in which fatherhood was established and two women - the surrogate mother and the father's wife who signed the surrogacy contract - had competing claims for motherhood.
Courts in other states have granted visitation and other parental rights to same-sex partners who had bonded with their child, ruling that such a nurturing adult may be considered a "psychological parent" even if not biologically related to the child. But today's rulings are the first in the nation to grant full parental status to both members of same-sex couples who participate in planning and rearing a child, said Shannon Minter, legal director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights , which took part in all three cases.
"This is one of those moments of legal history in the making," Minter said. "The decisions are going to be important not just in California but across the country."
The rulings were issued three weeks after another gay-rights decision by the same court, prohibiting California businesses from discriminating against registered domestic partners as couples - for example, by granting memberships or discounts only to married couples.
Another case heading for the state's high court is a constitutional challenge to California laws defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman, in suits filed by gay and lesbian couples and the city of San Francisco. That case would be derailed, however, if voters approve either of two proposed initiatives to lock the ban on same-sex marriage into the state Constitution and repeal newly established benefits for domestic partners.
Today's rulings apply to couples who never registered as domestic partners or who had broken up before this year, when a new law took effect that granted domestic partners most of the same rights as spouses. Those rights included the same parental status as opposite-sex couples in similar circumstances - rights that the court extended beyond domestic partners today.
In one case, partners Elisa Maria B. and Emily B. had children in 1997 and 1998, respectively, using the same sperm donor, and raised them together before separating in 1999. Elisa agreed to provide financial support whenever she could for her stay-at-home partner's twins - one of them seriously ill - but stopped making payments 18 months after the couple separated.
Reversing a lower-court ruling, the Supreme Court said Elisa was a legal parent of the children she had helped to plan and raise, and must reimburse El Dorado County for the welfare her partner was paid after she stopped receiving child support.
"We were doing everything we possibly could to form a family," Emily B. said at a news conference after the ruling. Noting that children of an opposite-sex couple would clearly have been entitled to support in the same situation, she said the court recognized the needs of "children who were invisible."
In a second case, the court said a Los Angeles woman, Kristine H., was bound by a pre-birth agreement she signed with her partner, Lisa Ann R., saying both would be parents of the child Kristine was carrying. Kristine opposed Lisa's request for visitation and custody after the couple separated two years later, but the court said Kristine had taken the benefits of the agreement and must accept the burdens.
Both those rulings were unanimous, but the court split 4-2 in a third case. A Marin County woman, K.M., donated eggs to her partner that were fertilized by an anonymous donor and resulted in the birth of twin girls in December 1995. The couple raised the children together for more than five years before separating, and the birth mother, E.G., took the twins to Massachusetts.
A state appeals court ruled last year that E.G. was the girls' sole parent, noting that K.M. had signed a prenatal agreement waiving parental rights. But the Supreme Court majority said the agreement - which K.M. claimed she signed under pressure - was not binding because K.M. was a biological parent and because the partners had intended to raise the children together.
In dissent, Justice Kathryn Mickle Werdegar said the ruling disregards the partners' intentions, violates E.G.'s right to choose to be a single parent, and calls into question the validity of many pre-birth agreements. One member of a couple who donates eggs to her partner may now be regarded as a parent in the future regardless of her intentions, Werdegar said.
The cases are Elisa B. vs. Superior Court, S125912; Kristine H. vs. Lisa R., S126945; and K.M. vs. E.G., S125643.
San Francisco -- Lesbian and gay couples who plan for a family and raise a child together can be considered legal parents after a breakup, with all the rights and responsibilities of heterosexual parents, the California Supreme Court ruled today.
In three decisions that a gay-rights advocate described as historic, the court upheld the claims of motherhood by estranged lesbian partners who had been involved in relationships that resulted in children born by artificial insemination. The court noted that the three women had cooperated in conceiving and rearing the children in a family setting and, thus, had the right of parenthood under the law - from the privilege of visitation to the responsibility of child support payments.
"We perceive no reason why both parents of a child cannot be women," said Justice Carlos Moreno, author of all three rulings. He said the court's statement in a 1993 surrogate-parent case, that a child can have only one natural mother, was limited to situations in which fatherhood was established and two women - the surrogate mother and the father's wife who signed the surrogacy contract - had competing claims for motherhood.
Courts in other states have granted visitation and other parental rights to same-sex partners who had bonded with their child, ruling that such a nurturing adult may be considered a "psychological parent" even if not biologically related to the child. But today's rulings are the first in the nation to grant full parental status to both members of same-sex couples who participate in planning and rearing a child, said Shannon Minter, legal director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights , which took part in all three cases.
"This is one of those moments of legal history in the making," Minter said. "The decisions are going to be important not just in California but across the country."
The rulings were issued three weeks after another gay-rights decision by the same court, prohibiting California businesses from discriminating against registered domestic partners as couples - for example, by granting memberships or discounts only to married couples.
Another case heading for the state's high court is a constitutional challenge to California laws defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman, in suits filed by gay and lesbian couples and the city of San Francisco. That case would be derailed, however, if voters approve either of two proposed initiatives to lock the ban on same-sex marriage into the state Constitution and repeal newly established benefits for domestic partners.
Today's rulings apply to couples who never registered as domestic partners or who had broken up before this year, when a new law took effect that granted domestic partners most of the same rights as spouses. Those rights included the same parental status as opposite-sex couples in similar circumstances - rights that the court extended beyond domestic partners today.
In one case, partners Elisa Maria B. and Emily B. had children in 1997 and 1998, respectively, using the same sperm donor, and raised them together before separating in 1999. Elisa agreed to provide financial support whenever she could for her stay-at-home partner's twins - one of them seriously ill - but stopped making payments 18 months after the couple separated.
Reversing a lower-court ruling, the Supreme Court said Elisa was a legal parent of the children she had helped to plan and raise, and must reimburse El Dorado County for the welfare her partner was paid after she stopped receiving child support.
"We were doing everything we possibly could to form a family," Emily B. said at a news conference after the ruling. Noting that children of an opposite-sex couple would clearly have been entitled to support in the same situation, she said the court recognized the needs of "children who were invisible."
In a second case, the court said a Los Angeles woman, Kristine H., was bound by a pre-birth agreement she signed with her partner, Lisa Ann R., saying both would be parents of the child Kristine was carrying. Kristine opposed Lisa's request for visitation and custody after the couple separated two years later, but the court said Kristine had taken the benefits of the agreement and must accept the burdens.
Both those rulings were unanimous, but the court split 4-2 in a third case. A Marin County woman, K.M., donated eggs to her partner that were fertilized by an anonymous donor and resulted in the birth of twin girls in December 1995. The couple raised the children together for more than five years before separating, and the birth mother, E.G., took the twins to Massachusetts.
A state appeals court ruled last year that E.G. was the girls' sole parent, noting that K.M. had signed a prenatal agreement waiving parental rights. But the Supreme Court majority said the agreement - which K.M. claimed she signed under pressure - was not binding because K.M. was a biological parent and because the partners had intended to raise the children together.
In dissent, Justice Kathryn Mickle Werdegar said the ruling disregards the partners' intentions, violates E.G.'s right to choose to be a single parent, and calls into question the validity of many pre-birth agreements. One member of a couple who donates eggs to her partner may now be regarded as a parent in the future regardless of her intentions, Werdegar said.
The cases are Elisa B. vs. Superior Court, S125912; Kristine H. vs. Lisa R., S126945; and K.M. vs. E.G., S125643.
This entry was posted
on Monday, August 22, 2005 at 3:05 PM.
Want to discuss? Leave a comment below.
» Post a Comment