[QL] 3 articles on parental rights


To QL <queerlaw@lists.qrd.org>
From Doug Case <Doug.Case@cox.net>
Date Mon, 29 Nov 2004 08:31:41 -0800
List-Id Sexual Orientation and the Law <queerlaw.lists.qrd.org>
Reply-To Sexual Orientation and the Law <queerlaw@lists.qrd.org>
Sender queerlaw-bounces@lists.qrd.org

Texas Court Upholds Lesbian Partner Adoption

by 365Gay.com Newscenter Staff
Posted: November 28, 2004

http://www.365gay.com/newscon04/11/112804txAdopt.htm

(Galveston, Texas)  A Texas appeals court has 
upheld a Galveston lesbian's adoption of her 
former partner's biological daughter.

The birth mother, Julie Anne Hobbs, has appealed 
a district judge's ruling last month that Hobbs' 
ex-partner, Janet Kathleen Van Stavern had equal 
parenting rights. (story)

Hobbs had become pregnant through artificial 
insemination. The man who donated the semen 
voluntarily terminated his parental rights and 
Van Stavern legally adopted the girl when she was 
a 3-years old.

Hobbs and Van Stavern's eight-year relationship 
ended in March and Hobbs went to court to have 
the adoption overturned arguing that Texas law 
does not permit co-parenting by same-sex couples.

Van Stavern has continued to provide $400 a month 
in child support since her split from Hobbs.

Attorneys for Hobbs, told The Galveston County 
Daily News that the ruling cited problems with 
the form of the appeal, not its merits, and that 
they would consider appealing the decision to the 
Texas Supreme Court.

©365Gay.com 2004

--------------------

2.  Lesbian 'parents' given status under law

By The Associated Press
(Evansville Courier & Press)
November 28, 2004

http://www.courierpress.com/ecp/news/article/0,1626,ECP_734_3359384,00.html

INDIANAPOLIS - Lesbian partners in Indiana who 
agree to conceive a child through artificial 
insemination are both the legal parents of any 
children born to them, the Indiana Court of 
Appeals has ruled.

In its unanimous ruling, the court chided state 
lawmakers for being slow to deal with advances in 
reproductive technology and urged the General 
Assembly to address the "current social reality" 
of unconventional families.

"No (legitimate) reason exists to provide the 
children born to lesbian parents through the use 
of reproductive technology with less security and 
protection than that given to children born to 
heterosexual parents through artificial 
insemination," Judge Ezra H. Friedlander wrote in 
the ruling issued Wednesday.

"Our paramount concern should be with the effect 
of our laws on the reality of children's lives."

The court's decision overturns a ruling by a 
Monroe Circuit Court judge who found that a 
Bloomington woman, Dawn King, had no legal 
standing with the girl born to her former 
partner, Stephanie Benham, because King was not a 
biological parent.

Fran Quigley, executive director of the Indiana 
Civil Liberties Union, called the ruling "an 
important first step" in providing legal 
protection to parents and children of 
nontraditional families.

Courtney Joslin, an attorney with the National 
Center for Lesbian Rights in San Francisco, said 
appellate courts in about a dozen states have 
issued similar rulings.

The decision is likely to have an impact on 
future custody and child support cases, and 
issues such as access to health insurance and 
inheritance through the non-biological parent, 
said Joslin and Quigley.

Previously in Indiana, the only way for same-sex 
partners to each attain legal parent status was 
through a "second-parent adoption" - a costly 
undertaking that grants parental rights to a 
non-biological parent.

However, some judges in Indiana have refused to 
allow the second-parent adoptions for same-sex 
partners.

This week's ruling does not address a challenge 
to Indiana's ban on same-sex marriage that is 
pending before the state Court of Appeals. But 
Micah Clark, executive director of the American 
Family Association of Indiana, a group that 
promotes the traditional concept of family, said 
"this essentially renders marriage and fathers 
meaningless."

Fishers attorney Sean C. Lemieux, who represented 
King, said the case is about the rights of 
parents and children and was based on a state 
Supreme Court ruling involving a married 
heterosexual couple that had a child through 
artificial insemination.

Lemieux said the court stopped short of setting a 
standard for what constitutes a nontraditional 
parenting partnership, something that still must 
be resolved.

In King's case, he said, the existence of a partnership was clear, he said.

King and Benham shared their home, lives and 
finances for nine years. Benham was impregnated 
with semen donated by King's brother and King was 
present and participated in the child's birth.

The little girl, now 5 years old, recognized both 
women as her mothers, calling King "momma." After 
the pair split in January 2002, King paid child 
support and had regular visits with the child 
until July 2003, when Benham stopped accepting 
the support and denied King visitation.

© 2004 The E.W. Scripps Co.

--------------------

3.  'Landmark' decision in lesbian custody case
Vt. judge rules both partners in civil union are parents

By LOU CHIBBARO JR.
Washington Blade
Friday, November 26, 2004

http://www.washblade.com/2004/11-26/news/national/landmark.cfm

A Vermont judge ruled on Nov. 17 that both 
partners in same-sex civil unions performed in 
that state become automatic legal parents of a 
child, regardless of which partner gives birth to 
or adopts the child.

The ruling, which legal observers called a 
landmark decision, was issued in response to a 
bitter child custody dispute between two lesbians 
from Virginia who entered into a Vermont civil 
union in 2000.

The two women, Lisa Miller-Jenkins, 35, who 
currently lives outside Winchester, Va., and 
Janet Miller-Jenkins, 39, who lives in Fair 
Haven, Vt., separated in September 2003. The 
separation came two years after Lisa 
Miller-Jenkins gave birth to the couple's 
daughter through artificial insemination.

The dispute has led to a showdown between courts 
in Vermont and Virginia, where Vermont's civil 
union law is being pitted against Virginia's 
anti-gay Marriage Affirmation Act, which bans 
legal recognition of all forms of same-sex 
relationships.

Lisa Miller-Jenkins has invoked the Marriage 
Affirmation Act, which took effect July 1, in an 
attempt to bar her former partner from visiting 
the child and from playing any role in the 
child's upbringing.

Judge William D. Cohen of the Rutland County, 
Vt., Family Court, earlier this year awarded Lisa 
Miller-Jenkins primary custody of the child while 
granting Janet Miller-Jenkins visitation rights. 
At the time, relations between the two remained 
cordial, and Lisa Miller-Jenkins did not raise 
objections to her former partner's interest in 
visiting the child, according to Joseph Price, an 
attorney representing Janet Miller-Jenkins.


New Va. law sparks dispute
The couple and the child, 2-year-old Isabella, 
had been living together in Vermont. Price said 
it was Lisa Miller-Jenkins' idea that they move 
from Virginia to Vermont in July 2002, when both 
agreed that Vermont provided a more favorable 
environment for a lesbian couple. When the couple 
split up in September 2003, Lisa Miller-Jenkins 
and Isabella moved to Hamilton, Va., near 
Winchester, under a separation agreement worked 
out jointly and amicably through a proceeding 
with Judge Cohen's court in Rutland.

The cordial relations between the two women ended 
suddenly on July 1 when Lisa Miller-Jenkins 
declared she was no longer a lesbian and filed 
court papers in Virginia seeking sole parental 
rights to her daughter under the state's Marriage 
Affirmation Act. The act took effect that same 
day. Lisa Miller-Jenkins also sought help from an 
"ex-gay" organization in Vermont and from 
anti-gay rights groups in Virginia in her quest 
to obtain sole custody rights to her daughter. In 
response to a motion filed by her attorney, a 
judge in Virginia ruled that Lisa Miller-Jenkins 
is the child's "sole parent."

Judge John R. Prosser of the Frederick County, 
Va., Circuit Court declared that his court, 
rather than the Vermont family court, had 
jurisdiction over the case under the Marriage 
Affirmation Act.

The Republican-controlled Virginia Legislature 
passed the Marriage Affirmation Act last year by 
a lopsided margin. At the time, Democratic Gov. 
Mark Warner attempted to amend the bill to exempt 
private contracts from the law while retaining 
its ban on same-sex marriage or civil unions. But 
the assembly rejected those changes by a 
veto-proof margin.

In his latest ruling on Nov. 17, Judge Cohen in 
Vermont rejected Prosser's ruling, saying his 
court has jurisdiction over the case.

"Parties to a civil union who use artificial 
insemination to conceive a child can be treated 
no differently than a husband and wife, who, 
unable to conceive a child biologically, choose 
to conceive a child by inseminating the wife with 
the sperm of an anonymous donor," Cohen wrote in 
his ruling.

Cohen added that the argument by an attorney for 
Lisa Miller-Jenkins, that Janet Miller-Jenkins 
has no legal parental rights unless she adopts 
the child, "is without merit."

Cohen agreed to arguments by attorneys 
representing Janet Miller-Jenkins that both the 
Vermont civil union law and a federal statute 
called the Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act of 
1980 gave the Vermont court clear jurisdiction 
over the case. Cohen based this opinion on the 
fact that both women initially filed jointly for 
a separation in their civil union in the Vermont 
court system, a development that places the case 
in Vermont rather than in a state in which one of 
the two partners moves.

"This is clearly the right interpretation of the 
law," said Price, Janet Miller-Jenkins' attorney.

"My client is being treated like any other parent in this situation," he said.


Two states disagree on jurisdiction
But Price, who chairs the board of the statewide 
gay rights group Equality Virginia, acknowledged 
that Judge Cohen currently has no powers to force 
Lisa Miller-Jenkins to comply with his latest 
ruling and his earlier order that Janet 
Miller-Jenkins be allowed to visit Isabella in 
Virginia. In September, upon learning that Lisa 
repeatedly refused to allow Janet to visit the 
child, Cohen declared Lisa in contempt of court.

The contempt order could lead to a fine, jail 
time, or a reversal of the custody agreement for 
Lisa if the Virginia courts eventually concede 
jurisdiction to Vermont or if a federal court 
decides that Vermont has jurisdiction in the case.

Attorneys representing Lisa Miller-Jenkins did 
not return phone calls by press time.

Price said Janet Miller-Jenkins is appealing the 
ruling of Judge Prosser of the Frederick Circuit 
Court to the Virginia Court of Appeals. Price 
said he is hopeful that the appeals court will 
reverse Prosser's ruling on grounds that Prosser 
failed to correctly interpret the federal 
"parental kidnapping" statute, which places 
jurisdiction in custody cases with the court that 
first hears such cases.

Any legally correct ruling would have to concede 
jurisdiction to Vermont, Price said.

He said both sides would most likely appeal an 
unfavorable ruling to the Virginia State Supreme 
Court. An unfavorable ruling there might prompt 
either side to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, 
according to Price.

But he said the case, in the unlikely event that 
the U.S. Supreme Court agrees to take it, would 
center on a "parochial" issue of state 
jurisdiction over a child custody matter. It 
would not address the issue of civil unions or 
same-sex marriage, Price said.

Last summer, the Center for American Cultural 
Renewal, an organization calling for the repeal 
of Vermont's civil union law, announced it was 
funding Lisa Miller-Jenkins' legal efforts to 
obtain sole parental rights of her child. In a 
fund-raising letter, the group condemned Janet 
Miller-Jenkins for "exploiting" the child to 
"further the extreme ideology of the radical 
homosexual agenda." The letter included a photo 
of Janet Miller-Jenkins and Isabella.

Lou Chibbaro Jr. can be reached at lchibbaro@washblade.com.
© 2004 | A Window Media Publication
-- 
The item above is being distributed as a free, 
non-profit informational service to a limited 
number of individuals who have expressed interest 
in this topic for educational and research 
purposes only. Please do not redistribute or post 
copyrighted material anyplace on the Internet 
accessible to the public without attribution and 
permission from the author. Please note that 
distribution of this item does not necessarily 
constitute endorsement of the content; in fact, 
often items are distributed as "opposition 
research."

_______________________________________________
queerlaw mailing list
queerlaw@lists.qrd.org
http://lists.qrd.org/mailman/listinfo/queerlaw
free hosting by http://www.mutualaid.org


Partial thread listing:
[QL] 3 articles on parental rights Doug Case (11/29/04)
[QL] NCLR Files Reply Brief in Woo v. Lockyer, Doug Case (11/24/04)
[QL] Landmark ruling made in civil union custody battle, Doug Case (11/21/04)
[QL] ACLU Drops Gay Marriage Case in Oregon, Doug Case (11/21/04)