In a decision this morning which may signal a looming near-term victory for gay marriage advocates in an entirely different case, the Washington Supreme Court affirmed that a lesbian jilted by her partner for their child's sperm donor can seek parental rights as a "defacto parent" by trial in a lower court, under the state's Uniform Parentage Act. KING 5-TV has the story first, here (free reg. may be req.).
"Today we hold that our common law recognizes the status of de facto parents and places them in parity with biological and adoptive parents in our state," the court, led by Justice Bobbe J. Bridge, wrote in the 7-2 decision. "Neither the United States Supreme Court nor this court has ever held that 'family' or 'parents' are terms limited in their definition by a strict biological prerequisite."
The Washington Supreme Court is expected to rule very soon on several consolidated cases seeking to overturn the state's Defense Of Marriage Act, which defines marriage as between a man and woman. I'll admit that what immediately follows is no finely-considered point of legal analysis, but then again that's not always this court's stock in trade, either - and so I wonder if, given that a lesbian jilted by her lover for a male may still qualify as a "defacto parent" based on six years of cohabitation with a child, what then is to stop the court from also concluding that gay couples cohabitating for a certain number of years are "defacto spouses" deserving the full legal status of marriage?
I guess we'll soon see. If the state's high court does strike down DOMA, any effort to override that with a pro-DOMA constitutional amendment will be difficult, though not impossible. Two-thirds of both the state House and Senate must approve placing an amendment on the ballot for voters, who would then decide by a simple majority.
A pro-DOMA amendment, if it becomes an objective as social conservatives here promise it will, might first entail a longer-term campaign to shift the current balance of both the Democratic-dominated chambers, to strong Republican majorities. The first step in that campaign, of course, would be putting the Dems in Olympia on record as unwilling to allow a public vote on the amendment.
They'll be skating on thin ice if they follow that course. As will gay marriage advocates if they against resort to the usual incendiary rhetoric.
Posted by Matt Rosenberg at November 03, 2005 11:35 AM | Email ThisSpeaking of responsibility, the male sperm donor knew what he was doing, and chose to contribute anyway. Now he comes along six years later and wants to be a parent. The "de facto" mom sounds like a better parent than this bozo.
Yes, the best situation is for a child to have a mother and a father. But that isn't always possible. So why punish the child because the adults in life do stupid things?
Posted by: Janet S on November 3, 2005 01:01 PMJanet, with you babysitter example, would you say that she has the right to stay involved? For the sake of the child? Nice "sensitive" thing to say. But a bunch of bull. The sitter is a hired person. If the parents say they aren't using that person anymore then that's it.
Back to the lesbian thing...maybe the mother is now going with what is best. She knows what is best as she's made a choice to be with the father and to get away from the destructive gay lifestyle. Choice...hmmm only matters for a women to kill the unborn. Liberals are strange.
Posted by: Dengle on November 3, 2005 01:43 PMSecond, you , as do I, have no idea of his involvement during the childs life. But Britain did chose to end her "other" relationship to pursue one with him. This implys that he was more then just a "sperm donor".
And third , you assume that the person outed was a better role model. Although she is the one ,who was willing to cause this upheaval in the child's life. Is she really doing this for the child's good or her own ego?
Posted by: Mike P on November 3, 2005 01:45 PMThe biological mother only married the father/sperm donor after the lawsuit was filed. This was "a strange twist of events" done "admittedly in response to" the lawsuit. He is not a party to the lawsuit and "his whereabouts are unknown." In other words, he's not living with the biological mom, and he doesn't care a whit about this child.
In contrast, for the first six years of the child's life, the lesbian couple jointly considered themselves "parents" of the child. They were both named as her "parents" on kindergarten and first grade records. The child referred to the two women as "mama" and "mommy" respectively.
This is not a situation where the biological mom chose a new relationship. Against the interests of the child, she sought to freeze the child out from her other "parent," and when a lawsuit was filed so that the other parent could stay in the child's life, she underwent a sham marriage with the sperm donor to try to make that isolation permanent.
Unless one of them is an unfit parent, the best interests of the child are served by letting her continue to see the "parents" she has always known.
(By the way, the quotes above are from the court decision.)
I have troubles getting worked up about this. The father in this case has a right to do what he wants with the child, and it's cleary best he distance himself from the child and that DESTRUCTIVE interracial lifestyle. He has a new wife and they live together. The negress is out, and that is what the couple wants. That is what it should be.
Janet, with your babysitter example, would you say that negro caregivers have a right to stay employed? For the sake of the child? Nice 'sensitive' thing to say. But a bunch of bull. The sitter is a black person. If the parents say they aren't using that person anymore, then that's it.
Back to the interracial thing... maybe the father is now going with what's best: He knows what is best as he has made the choice to remove himself from negroes.
We all know that miscegenation happens. The Washington Supreme Court is expected to rule very soon on several consolidated cases seeking to overturn the state's Defense Of Separate Marriage Act.
A pro-DOSMA amendment, if it becomes an objective as social conservatives here promise it will, might first entail a longer-term campaign to shift the current balance of both the Abolishionist-dominated chambers, to strong Conservative majorities. The first step in that campaign, of course, would be putting the Liberals in Olympia on record as unwilling to allow a public vote on the amendment.
They'll be skating on thin ice if they follow that course. As will interracial marriage advocates if they against resort to the usual incendiary rhetoric.
It appalls me every day to think that DOSMA legislation is even necessary to BEGIN WITH.
Jesus... Imagine being a negro lover and not being very good at it! Your white lover leaves you stuck with a mulato!
Perhaps they could form the "Aunt Jamima All-Negro Marching Band and Gourmet Fried Chicken Club" and enter the Summer Solstice Parade in Fremont.
Posted by: Prudence Nightengale on November 3, 2005 02:27 PMIt's time to look harder at something back down south. How in the !@#$ can these people - I hate to use the word "judges" because they have defamed the court, the bar and the law with this ruling - live with themselves?
Posted by: SnoCo Voter on November 3, 2005 02:43 PMThis decision is irrelevant to the best interest of anybody in the case itself and more centered on the current cultural winds, and because of that we will not only end up with a tragedy in the lives of these people, but we will then perpetuate the tragedy by sanctioning and codifying the poor decisions.
Somewhere along the way our culture has lost the will to say "you made your bed, now lie in it", and say, rather, "wow, what a horrible predicament you are in, I guess we will all have to validate your 'choice' so that we don't appear to make a judgement so that others in the future won't feel so guilty when they too make the same bad choice."
Posted by: Eyago on November 3, 2005 03:33 PMBut you and WASC are assuming that the non-biological member has an "entitlement to the child" as a "parent". This decision is trying to establish "common law parents". No such law exists. And the effects of such a law would be far reaching.
There is existing law concerning "who" and "how" child custody is handled in this state. It was flat out ignored. Again, I state this would not have even been brought up, if the agrieved party was a man.
Posted by: Mike P on November 3, 2005 03:40 PMDon't ya love this legislating from the court. Yeeeehawwwwww
Be sure and remember these idiots when you vote for judges!
Posted by: GS on November 3, 2005 04:42 PMYou call me out for supposed "assumptions." I encourage you to READ the decision, as I have.
If you do so, you will find that the sperm donor is not a party to the suit and his "whereabouts are unknown." If you knew anything about the law, you would know that the mere fact that he wasn't a party when the suit was filed doesn't explain his absence as a party three years later. If he were at all interested in being a parent to this child with his "wife," they would've filed the case together -- or he could have "intervened" as a party. (This happens all the time -- and would be routine in a case like this.)
If you paid any attention to the facts, you would realize that his "unknown" whereabouts speak volumes about what's going on in this case. He's not interested; he doesn't care about this child. If he did, he be known to at least one of the parties (say, for example, his "wife") in a Washington Supreme Court case involving that very child, dontcha think?
One person who does care about this child is the one who was called "mommy" by her from the time she could speak until she was six, whose name is listed along with her biological mother in the child's "baby book," etc. Read the case. All of this, and more, is in there.
When I wrote of the "parents" of this child, I was quoting the undisputed facts from the Supreme Court's opinion. The two women were both listed as the girl's "parents" when she enrolled in kindergarten and first grade. Now, does that count for anything with you -- or do you think that this child should be freely taken away from someone she called "mommy," with no legal recourse for anyone to do a thing about it?
As for the legal issues, again, I encourage anyone who's really interested in the issue to read the decision before popping off. The question of whether someone is a "de facto" parent is derived from legal rules that pre-existed the current statutes. The court found that the statutes don't override those underlying principles. In one such case (from the 1930s or 40s, I think), the court awarded custody to a child's aunt with whom the child had lived for eight years, instead of the child's biological father. This case follows that tradition.
Posted by: Bluebeard on November 3, 2005 08:53 PMYou call me out for supposed "assumptions." I encourage you to READ the decision, as I have.
If you do so, you will find that the sperm donor is not a party to the suit and his "whereabouts are unknown." If you knew anything about the law, you would know that the mere fact that he wasn't a party when the suit was filed doesn't explain his absence as a party three years later. If he were at all interested in being a parent to this child with his "wife," they would've filed the case together -- or he could have "intervened" as a party. (This happens all the time -- and would be routine in a case like this.)
If you paid any attention to the facts, you would realize that his "unknown" whereabouts speak volumes about what's going on in this case. He's not interested; he doesn't care about this child. If he did, he be known to at least one of the parties (say, for example, his "wife") in a Washington Supreme Court case involving that very child, dontcha think?
One person who does care about this child is the one who was called "mommy" by her from the time she could speak until she was six, whose name is listed along with her biological mother in the child's "baby book," etc. Read the case. All of this, and more, is in there.
When I wrote of the "parents" of this child, I was quoting the undisputed facts from the Supreme Court's opinion. The two women were both listed as the girl's "parents" when she enrolled in kindergarten and first grade. Now, does that count for anything with you -- or do you think that this child should be freely taken away from someone she called "mommy," with no legal recourse for anyone to do a thing about it?
As for the legal issues, again, I encourage anyone who's really interested in the issue to read the decision before popping off. The question of whether someone is a "de facto" parent is derived from legal rules that pre-existed the current statutes. The court found that the statutes don't override those underlying principles. In one such case (from the 1930s or 40s, I think), the court awarded custody to a child's aunt with whom the child had lived for eight years, instead of the child's biological father. This case follows that tradition.
Posted by: Bluebeard on November 3, 2005 08:53 PM
There is another point on the matter relating to law. The state's Supreme Court has a long history of writing legislation through its decisions. The court, completely on its own, defined a concept called "meritricious relationship," which essential means common law marriage but is much more vague and thus much more scary.
The next step in here is to call gay marriages meritricious relationships. That would be fine and dandy, but first the legislature never created such a concept, which is where law is supposed to come from. Second, once two men can be said to be in a meritricious relationship, what is to stop your old roommate (with home you had no sexual relationship) from claiming that you had a meritricious relationship after he finds that you made a ton of money.
Our Court is a mess and really needs to be reformed.
Posted by: BananaLand (aka Iguana) on November 3, 2005 11:24 PMAll the cases sighted are the precedents for CURRENT Adoption and Child custody law. You probably have not gone through a child custody case. You need to look into those laws before you post. Listing someone as a parent at school, does not make them one.
Anyone can adopt a child or petition to be granted guardianship of a child. That means she would have legally announced and had valid claim in the care and raising of this child. She did not.
This is like saying, "the constitution says there is a seperation of church and state". When what it really says is "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion...."
Get your facts right before you post. This decision was political. Note: It was not a unanimous decision.
Posted by: Mike P on November 4, 2005 06:46 AMJohn Carlson and Ken Schram discussed this yesterday. John stated that the legislature should decide these issues and Schram agreed... sort of. Ken said that the legislature didn't have the courage to address these issues, therefore the court needed to! (I turned off the radio, so if Ken modified his statement, sorry I missed it)
Courts are to rule on the laws as written and interpret them in light of the constitution. In this case, the law was very clear and did not include a definition for this instance, so the courts amended the law to add one - that is legislating from the bench. They should have said, "Sorry, but the law doesn't allow us to support your request" and returned to the legislature where it belonged!
Posted by: SouthernRoots on November 4, 2005 12:44 PMWhat next? Anything goes.
Posted by: Amused by liberals on November 4, 2005 01:25 PMAmused - That's an outrageous statement! I don't think she's been convicted (yet) ;'}
Posted by: alphabet soup on November 4, 2005 01:55 PM"Sue Ellen "Mian" Carvin sued Britain, her former partner of 12 years, two years ago after Britain stopped allowing Carvin to see the girl because of disagreements over how she should be raised."
"Mian" has no say on how the child should be raised, so I am not sure why I see an issue here.
All I can say is that poor child - what an f'd up life they must have.
seems to me that we are interpreting and changing the law (WA and U.S.) based on a hell of a lot of (assumed) "penumbrae" of the laws and not based on the 4 edges of the documents nor their simple intent--can you say "Constitution?!"
Posted by: Jimmie-howya-doin on November 4, 2005 10:26 PMGood job. You are quite correct.
Posted by: Amused by liberals on November 5, 2005 01:06 PM