Lesbian lover equal to biological parent

  • Thread starter Thread starter swampfox
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
S

swampfox

Guest
worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=47206
Court rules woman who helped raise child has ‘parity’ with biological, adoptive mothers

The lesbian lover of a child’s biological mother has equal legal rights with traditional parents, the Washington state Supreme Court ruled today.

The case involved a woman who raised a child from birth to age 6 while in a “relationship” with the girl’s biological mother, the Associated Press reported. The ruling means the non-biological “mother” can seek parental rights as a “de facto parent.”

Justice Bobbe J. Bridge

“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.”

In 2002, Sue Ellen Carvin sued her former partner, Page Britain, alleging Britain, the girl’s biological mother, unfairly cut off access to the child.

According to AP, several years ago the two women decided to parent a child together, and Britain was artificially inseminated, giving birth in 1995. For the next several years, Carvin stayed home to raise the girl, who called her “Mama” and Britain “Mommy.”

A year and a half ago, the couple split up, with Britain marrying the biological father of her daughter.

While an appeals court found Carvin did not have rights under the state’s Uniform Parentage Act, she could seek status as a “de facto or psychological parent” by providing evidence of a parent-child relationship.

“We strongly urge trial courts in this and similar cases to consider the interests of children in dependency, parentage, visitation, custody and support proceedings,” the court wrote, and “to act on their behalf and represent their interests would be appropriate and in the interests of justice.”
 
So now she has a “mama” and a “mommy” and a father??? How is this going to teach her about healthy relationship?
 
taking her away from a woman who has raised since infancy would not teach her anything but trauma. you shouldnt punish the child for the sins of the parents.
40.png
beckers:
So now she has a “mama” and a “mommy” and a father??? How is this going to teach her about healthy relationship?
 
The cause of the situation is the child’s mother sexual relationships and no fault of the child of course. However, we cannot allow a wrong to persist simply by saying ‘the child shoud not suffer’. If the child suffers, it is due to the disordered relationship, and the decision of the courts should not be based on supporting such a relationship in any way.

I feel for the child, and the difficult situation, but I fear the court may have compounded the problem by allowing it to persist, rather than bringing resolution.
 
40.png
TarAshly:
taking her away from a woman who has raised since infancy would not teach her anything but trauma. you shouldnt punish the child for the sins of the parents.
While an appeals court found Carvin did not have rights under the state’s Uniform Parentage Act, she could seek status as a “de facto or psychological parent” by providing evidence of a parent-child relationship.
I guess if the woman was a nanny, she could have obtained parental rights in Washington.
 
Another reason why the Moral Relativism of today’s secular society must be eliminated.

PF
 
The high court’s ruling upheld a Court of Appeals decision that similarly recognized the status of de-facto parents. Thursday’s ruling allows Carvin to return to trial court to seek the same parental rights and responsibilities Britain has.** To be considered a de-facto parent, she must prove she and the child had lived together, that she helped raise the child without expecting to be paid, that a bond formed between them, and that the child’s legal or natural parent encouraged the relationship.**
**Seven lawyers redefine parenthood in Washington and barely ho-hum. This is a big decision. Consider that if the child’s biological mother and father want to leave Washington for a job, they must get permission from a court. The radical logic of the gay movement and egalitarians is breath taking. **

**
In a blistering dissent, Justice James Johnson criticized the court, writing that it was ignoring parental laws already established by the Legislature and creating, by judicial decree, a new method of determining parentage.
**
 
From NRO
RE: DE FACTO PARENTS
Stanley Kurtz]
And see my discussion of new Swedish proposals for the recognition of multiple parenthood on the grounds that the two parent standard virtually forces lesbian couples to cut out the emotional/parental involvement of male sperm donors. (See the final section of “The Marriage Mentality.”)

So the whole lesbian sperm donor triangle raises a series of permutations, all of which undermine the notion that marriage is designed to bring the mother and father together to raise the child. Whichever way you turn to resolve the question raises a new set of undermining possibilities. We see these developing most clearly in places like Sweden, where same-sex registered partnerships help move the law in the new direction. But the process is already at work here in America, and will be moved far down the road by same-sex marriage.

Another dimension of the de facto parent problem is the effect it will have on heterosexual single mothers who use a relative, friend, or perhaps even a nanny to care for their child for substantial periods of time. As the birth mother’s lawyer in this case points out, that could result in inadvertently granting those helpers a claim to fifty-fifty legal responsibility for the child.

http://corner.nationalreview.com/
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top