High Court Protects Kids of Calif. Gays

[flyingtiger1013]

http://www.wjla.com/news/stories/0805/254008.html

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) - In the latest ruling to recognize rights of same-sex couples, the California Supreme Court has said gay and lesbian couples who raise children are lawful parents and must provide for their children if they break up. The state's custody and child support laws that hold absent fathers accountable also apply to estranged gay and lesbian couples who used reproductive science to conceive, the high court ruled Monday.

Being a legal parent "brings with it the benefits as well as the responsibilities," said Justice Joyce Kennard.

The decision comes a month after the justices ruled that a California domestic partner law grants gays and lesbians who register with the state many of the same rights as married couples, but does not allow them to marry.

"The court is now protecting the children of same sex parents in gay families in the same way children are protected with heterosexual couples in heterosexual families," said Jill Hersh, who argued the case of a Marin County woman who was granted the right to be the second mother of twins after the birth mother moved out of state.

However, groups opposing gay marriage decried the justices' actions.

"Today's ruling defies logic and common sense by saying that children can have two moms," said attorney Mathew Staver of Liberty Counsel. "That policy establishes that moms and dads as a unit are irrelevant when it comes to raising children."

The ruling stemmed from three cases involving lesbian parents.

In the Marin County case, the court gave parental rights to Hersh's client, who had donated her eggs to her lesbian lover. The partner then had twins. After the couple split up, a lower court said the egg donor was not a legal parent because she did not give birth.

Lower courts and dissenting justices noted the woman, K.M., voluntarily signed a document declaring her intention not to become a parent of any resulting children, and should not be granted parental status.

But Justice Carlos Moreno, writing for the 4-2 majority, said a woman who supplies eggs to help impregnate her lesbian partner, with the understanding the child will be raised in their home, cannot evade her responsibility to that child.

In the other cases, an El Dorado County woman was ordered to pay child support for her former lesbian partner's biological children, and a woman from Los Angeles was told she could not legally terminate the parental rights of her former lesbian lover, years after obtaining a court order stipulating both were parents.

Both cases were decided unanimously.

Emily B., the El Dorado County woman whose former lover, Elisa B., must now pay to support the children, said she might be able to get off of welfare now.

"I'm absolutely overjoyed today," she said.

The court followed its 2002 decision in which it said men who establish themselves as parental figures may become legal fathers even if they did not help conceive the child.

"These legal principles apply with equal force in this case," Kennard wrote in a concurring opinion in the Marin County case.

In a sign of the broad acceptance same-sex parents have in California, the state attorney general's office supported the women who had asked the justices for an updated interpretation of the state's parental rights laws. Several child-advocacy organizations filed friend-of-the-court briefs taking the same side.

For those that have begged for gay marriage, as a child support paying father of four I have always said, "Be careful of what you wish for, you might just get it." :laugh:

[chomerics]

Do you know the statistics of gay and lesbian couples who have children splitting up?

I don't have them off the top of my head, but I know it is a lot lower then "normal" families by a wide margin.

[Kilmer17]

knock knock knock

"Pandora? Are you in there?"

[NavyDave]

If you go on raw numbers then of course "NORMAL" people will have a higher number.

Percentages will be interesting as well as how many kids are traumatized because they arent in a normal family

[The Evil Genius]

knock knock knock

"Pandora? Are you in there?"

How anyone could be against this is beyond me - it's good for the children in that it allows/requires child support to be paid when gay parents split.

[Kilmer17]

Define "parent".

That's where the problem lies.

[Spaceman Spiff]

Oooooh here we go again

[The Evil Genius]

Define "parent".

That's where the problem lies.

Good point - however I think, in California, the definition has already been given. The justices furthered the 2002 finding that "men who establish themselves as parental figures may become legal fathers even if they did not help conceive the child."

Now, I do understand the contention over what defines a parent. But it comes down to this for me - what's better for the child - financial support from a mother/father - or no financial support.

To me, the answer is easy.

[NavyDave]

What I'm against is their union being considered marriage then they bring a child into the world via artificial insemination or if its two homosexuals they adopt.

Then the kids are exposed to their lifestyle instead of the natural ones.

[Kilmer17]

I agree, and I think this is a great ruling.

My problem comes into play when the firstlawsuit comes up because Laura decides that Annie should pay up but Annie doesnt think she was a "parent" in the first place.

That's the Pandoras Box Im worried about.

With a defined union, this is a slam dunk. I just dont think it will stay that simple.

[Larry]

I understand similar things are happening in family court cases, for lots of different reasons.

As near as I can tell, the courts are basicly deciding that "the kid needs support" outranks "it's not my kid". (Not an argument that I'm opposed to, either.

My bro lives in Ore. For some time he'd been dating a woman who had three kids from a previous marriage. He liked the woman, and the kids, and the kids got along well with his (non-custody) kid, too.

But, as he explained it to me, if he had, say, moved in with the woman (or she had moved in to his house) for a year or three, then they break up, then he's on the hook for child support, even though all three kids were born before he even met her. Aparantly, the way the reasoning works is, there's a certain point (which, I gather, isn't really clear) at which a person basicly volunteers to be a parent, and at that point he assumes the responsibility that goes with the job.

Now, any reason at all why the gender of the "volunteer parent" matters a bit?

[Larry]

What I'm against is their union being considered marriage then they bring a child into the world via artificial insemination or if its two homosexuals they adopt.

Then the kids are exposed to their lifestyle instead of the natural ones.

Heck, they might get kooties.

[NoCalMike]

I applaud this ruling because to me this is another step towards a legally defined union between the same sex couple. It is a lot harder to to sue someone because they were simply in a relationship for awhile, however if gays are allowed to marry or have a civil union, that could now be the standard for when a lawsuit is appropriate in these cases of the couple breaking up. I mean afterall, if my GF has a kid and I date her for a year, I don't think that makes me accountable for the rest of her child's life if we break up, of course there are gray areas in those situations too.........

[Kilmer17]

This is a scenario that I see as the problem.

What if 2 woman DONT want to have a union. But they DO want to have a kid. They get donated sperm and voila, one is pregnant. A few years later, the one who did not bear the child, wants out of the relationship. This decision will open up an avenue for her to get off WITHOUT paying by establishing the rules for when a person HAS to pay.

Again, Im behind the concept of this ruling, I just think its going to creat many more problems.

[chomerics]

What I'm against is their union being considered marriage then they bring a child into the world via artificial insemination or if its two homosexuals they adopt.

Then the kids are exposed to their lifestyle instead of the natural ones.

ND, there IS NO NORMAL lifestyle!!!!

You might think that a husband who cheats on his wife everyday, comes home drunk, then beats the crap out of her and his child is better then a caring loving family of the same sex, but I do not.

You need to look at what a true and real family is, and I'll give you a hint, every family is f'd up. As much as people like to think otherwise, there are problems with every family in America, and there is no "perfect Cleaver family". We are a cornucopia of nationalities and religions, that's what makes us great. We can understand other people have different opinions, and we accept this.

When I get pissed is when people, like yourself, think you are better then everyone else. You are better then homosexuals, so you put them down. You are better then liberals so you put them down. It is a doctrine of hate which you profess every day. It is not only wrong, but un-American to think this way. It is one of the main reasons I dislike the Bushies and co. they profess this division in our country and they try to push it through to their supporters. It is completely wrong, biased and simple minded. Hate is the easy way out, tolerance is takes actual thought, something you really need to examine in depth.

[chomerics]

This is a scenario that I see as the problem.

What if 2 woman DONT want to have a union. But they DO want to have a kid. They get donated sperm and voila, one is pregnant. A few years later, the one who did not bear the child, wants out of the relationship. This decision will open up an avenue for her to get off WITHOUT paying by establishing the rules for when a person HAS to pay.

Watch "the L word" on Showtime, there is a situation almost exactly like this, but wiothout a child. The court will treat it like any other parental situation, if one has custody, the other must pay support.

Again, Im behind the concept of this ruling, I just think its going to creat many more problems.

I think it is great ruling, as it is leading the way for acceptance in our society.

[Kilmer17]

"Watch "the L word" on Showtime, there is a situation almost exactly like this, but wiothout a child. The court will treat it like any other parental situation, if one has custody, the other must pay support. "

Maybe. But maybe not. She could claim that she didnt want a child in the first place and that was the reason they didnt have a recognized union.

Set it up a different way.

Let's say Bob is dating Annie. And Annie decides that she is going to adopt a child. She does so on her own, but dates Bob for a decade. Bob then decides he wants out. Should he bear any burden for the raising of her child? Of course not.

Now apply that scenario back to the Gay couple. Without the recognized union, the partner can claim the same thing that Bob does.

[codeorama]

Kilmer brings up some good points, however, if the courts treat the same sex couple exactly the same way as a traditional couple, there shouldn't be any problems.

I've said all along, "marriage" is more of a religious thing anyway, in terms of the government and law, there will be a point where they have to recognize same sex unions, regardless of if they want to call them marriage or not. There are too many other issues.

Finally, I agree that there is no "normal" family. Each situation is different and I'd bet any amount of money that there are gay couples that are a better option for childre rather than a "normal" family that has alcohol or abuse problems.

Do "normal" families have sex in front of their kids? What would make anyone one think a gay couple would?

[NoCalMike]

Set it up a different way.

Let's say Bob is dating Annie. And Annie decides that she is going to adopt a child. She does so on her own, but dates Bob for a decade. Bob then decides he wants out. Should he bear any burden for the raising of her child? Of course not.

Now apply that scenario back to the Gay couple. Without the recognized union, the partner can claim the same thing that Bob does.

Kilmer, good scenario to debate here. The thing is, I am not so sure in this scenario that the guy would get off scot free. Staying in the relationship 10 years past the adoption, shows he could be considered a parent to the child, unless he can somehow prove he continued to date the girl and at the same time maintain no comitment/emotional attatchment to the child. There are "common laws" and statutes that in some case would still hold him lobel. For instance in cases where a women cheats on her husband, has a kid, the husband finds out five years later, tries to leave, but is still liable for child support.......Gray Areas...all over.

[chomerics]

Let's say Bob is dating Annie. And Annie decides that she is going to adopt a child. She does so on her own, but dates Bob for a decade. Bob then decides he wants out. Should he bear any burden for the raising of her child? Of course not.

Any court of law would disagree with you, provided they were together when they adopted.

[Kilmer17]

Define "together".

If Im dating a girl who adopts a kid, there's not a court in the US that would somehow construe I am responsible.

[The Evil Genius]

Define dating. Are you cohabitating? Common law marriage is still one of the most misunderstood concepts. There are certain requirements that must be met - and not all states allow for common law marriages.

Still, I think if you are dating a girl for 10 years - you have a commitment problem.

[Kilmer17]

Let's say 2 people ARENT cohabitating.

[chomerics]

Define dating. Are you cohabitating? Common law marriage is still one of the most misunderstood concepts. There are certain requirements that must be met - and not all states allow for common law marriages.

Still, I think if you are dating a girl for 10 years - you have a commitment problem.

I did it for 12

Like I said before, if you were around when the woman had the child, then yes, you would be responsible. There are not many people who just "date" for 10 years without moving in together and having a commitment, but you can take it to the extreme.

There could be a case, I suppose, where one spouse does not owe child support, but I believe the circumstances would have to be nearly impossible for a real world situation to exist.

[chomerics]

Let's say 2 people ARENT cohabitating.

Then yes, there would most likely be no support, but how many people go out for 10 years and do not move in together?