 |
 |
 |
|
| Future Students | Current Students | Alumni & Friends | Curriculum | Faculty | Centers | Clinic | Library | Career Planning | CLE | News | Centennial | |||
|
|
|
|
| Future Students | Current Students | Alumni & Friends | Curriculum | Faculty | Centers | Clinic | Library | Career Planning | CLE | News | Centennial | |||
Nancy G. Maxwell and Caroline Forder
Appellate courts denying same-gender co-parent adoptions: Use of strict construction of state adoption codes:
| Colorado: In re Adoption of T.K.J. and K.A.K., Children, 931 P.2d 488 (Colo. Ct. App. 1996), NO. 95CA0531, 95CA0532, rehearing denied (1996), cert. denied, (1997) but see In re G.P.A. Case no 99-JV-440 (D. Colo. Nov. 10, 1999) and In re Twin A & Twin B, Civil Action No. 99 JV (Sept. 30, 1999) in which trial courts declared the co-parent to be a 'parent' under the Uniform Parentage Act; Connecticut: In re Adoption of Baby Z, 724 A.2d 1035 (Conn. 1999), however, case overturned by enactment of Conn. St. Ann. §§ 45a-724, 45a-731; Nebraska: 640 N.W.2d 374 (Neb. 2002); Ohio: In re Adoption of Jane Doe, 719 N.E.2d 1071 (Ohio Ct. App. 1998); Pennsylvania: In re Adoption of R.B.F. and R.C.F., 762 A.2d 739 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2000) and In re Adoption of C.C.G. and Z.C.G., 762 A.2d 724 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2000); Wisconsin: In re Angel Lace M., et al., 516 N.W.2d 678 (Wis. 1994). |
Appellate courts granting same-gender co-parent adoptions: Use of liberal construction of state adoption codes and the best interest of the child standard.
| District of Columbia: In re M.M.D. & B.H.M., 662 A.2d 837 (D.C. Cir.1995); Illinois: In re Petition of K.M., 653 N.E.2d 888 (Ill. 1995); Massachusetts: Adoption of Galen, 680 N.E.2d 70 (Mass. 1997), Adoption of Tammy, 619 N.E.2d 315 (Mass. 1993), Adoption of Susan, 619 N.E.2d 323 (Mass. 1993); New Jersey: In re Adoption of Two Children by H.N.R., 666 A.2d 553 (N.J. 1995); New York: In re Jacob, In re Dana, 660 N.E.2d 397 (N.Y. 1995); Vermont: Adoptions of B.L.V.B. and E.L.V.B., 628 A.2d 1271, 27 A.L.R.5th 819 (Vt. 1993). |
Trial courts granting same-gender co-parent adoptions:
| Alaska: In re A.O.L. No. 1JU-85-25-P/A (Alaska 1st Jud. Dist. July 23, 1985), In re Adoption of a Minor (C), No. 1-JU-86-73 P/A (Alaska 1st Jud. Dist. Feb. 6, 1987); California: In re Adoption of N.L.D., No. 18086 (Cal. Super. Ct. San Francisco County Sep. 4, 1987), In re Adoption Petition of Achtenberg, No. AD 18490 (Cal. Super. Ct. San Francisco County, 1989), In re Adoption of Carol, No. 18573 (Cal. Super. Ct. San Francisco County, 1989), Elaine Herscher, AIDS Child with 2 Lesbian Moms/How Couple Fought State for Adoption, S.F. CHRON., Nov. 27, 1989, at A8; In re Adoption of Nancy M., No. 18744 (Cal. Super. Ct. San Francisco County, 1990); Emily Doskow reported being the attorney of record for more than 50 adoptions in the county courts of California in Adoption Options for Gay and Lesbian Couples: An Interview with Emily Doskow, 20 FAM. ADVOC. 40, 44 (Summer 1997) but see Sharon S. v. Superior Court, 113 Cal. Rptr. 2d 107 (Cal. App. 2001) rev. granted (2002); Delaware: In re Peter and George Hart, 2001 WL 1773607, District of Columbia: In re Petition for Adoption of a Minor Child, No. A-8-94 (D.C. Super. Ct. May 4, 1995), which is an appendix thereto; Indiana: In re Adoption of Hentgen-Moore, No. 91CO1-9405-AD-009 (Ind. Cir. Ct. White County Mar. 24, 1995); Maryland: Karen Buckelew, Lesbian Adoption Ignites Protest, THE DAILY RECORD (BALTIMORE, MD), Jan. 13, 1999, which reported an adoption of twins by two lesbians; Minnesota: LaChapelle v. Mitten, 607 N.W.2d 151 (Minn. Ct. App. 2000); Oregon: In re Adoption of M.M.S.A., No. D8503-61930 (Or. Cir. Ct. Multnomah County Sept. 4, 1985); Pennsylvania: In re Adoption of E.O.G. & A.S.G., 14 Fiduc. Rep.2d 125 (Pa. C. P. York County Apr. 28, 1994) but see In re Adoption of R.B.F. and R.C.F., 762 A.2d 739 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2000) and In re Adoption of C.C.G. and Z.C.G., 762 A.2d 724 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2000); Texas: Suzanne Bryant reported an adoption in a Texas court, Suzanne Bryant, Second Parent Adoptions: A Model Brief, 2 DUKE J. GENDER L. & POL'Y 233 n.a (Spring 1995); Washington: Interest of E.B.G. No. 87-5-00137-5 (Wash. Super. Ct. Thurston County Mar. 29, 1989), In re Adoption of Child A and Child B, No. 88-5-00088-9 (Wash. Super Ct. 1988), In re Adoption of Child No. 1 and Child No. 2, No. 89-5-00067-7 (Wash. Super. Ct. Thurston County 1989); John Stevenson reported an adoption in a Washington state court, John Stevenson, Judge Postpones Decision on Lesbian Custody: Lawyer Argues that N.C. 'Public Policy' Invalidates Adoption, HERALD-SUN (DURHAM, N.C.), July 11, 1997 at C1. Because most trial-court decisions are not published, an accurate number of how many states' trial courts have granted same-gender co-parent adoptions is difficult to obtain, particularly since adoption cases in many states are confidential. See generally John Cloud, A Different Fathers' Day TIME, Dec. 29, 1997-Jan. 5, 1998, at 106. According to a 2001 report by the Human Rights Campaign Foundation, trial courts in at least 20 states have granted same-gender co-parent adoptions, The State of the Family, Laws and Legislation Affecting Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgendered Families, 23-24 (2002), http://www.hrc.org/familynet/library.asp?ID=271 |
Prohibiting the adoption:
| Florida: Fla. Stat. Ann. § 63.042(3) 'No person eligible to adopt under this statute may adopt if that person is a homosexual.' Mississippi: Miss. Code Ann. 93-17-3 (2) (2000) 'Adoption by couples of the same gender is prohibited.' Utah: Utah Stat. § 78-30-1 (3)(b) 'A child may not be adopted by a person who is cohabiting in a relationship that is not a legally valid and binding marriage under the laws of this state. For purposes of this Subsection (3)(b), "co-habiting" means residing with another person and being involved in a sexual relationship with that person.' |
Allowing the adoption:
| California: Assembly Bill 25, Stat. 2001, ch. 892 §3, at http://www.leginfo.ca.gov Connecticut: Conn. St. Ann. §§ 45a-724, 45a-731 Vermont: Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 15A § 1-102(b) 'If a family unit consists of a parent and the parent's partner, and the adoption is in the best interests of the child, the partner of the parent may adopt a child of the parent. Termination of the parent's parental rights is unnecessary in an adoption under this subsection.' |
In the following cases, the court found that a non-biological co-parent had no legal rights to the children, upon the termination of her relationship with the children's legal mother:
| California: Curiale v. Reagan, 272 Cal. Rptr. 520 (Ct. App. 1990), Nancy S. v. Michele G., 279 Cal. Rptr. 212 (Ct. App. 1991), West v. Superior Court, 69 Cal. Rptr. 2d 160 (Ct. App. 1997), In re Guardianship of Z.C.W., 84 Cal. Rptr. 2d 48 (Ct. App. 1999); Florida: Kazmierazak v Query, 736 So. 2d 106 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1999); Illinois: In re C.L.B., 723 N.E.2d 316 (Ill. Ct. App. 1999); New York: Alison D. v. Virginia M., 552 N.Y.S.2d 321 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990), Lynda A. H. v. Diane T. O., 673 N.Y.S.2d 989 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998), Matter of Speed v. Robins, 288 A.2d 479 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002), Janis C. v. Christine T., V-1926/99 (N.Y. App. Div. May 2002) but see J.C. v. C.T, 711 N.Y.S.2d 295 (Fam. Ct. 2000) in which the biological mother was estopped from dismissing the co-parent's petition for visitation, based on the mother's prior, inconsistent conduct; Ohio: Liston v. Pyles, 1997 WL 467327 (Ohio Ct. App. 10th Dist. Franklin County 1997), Tennessee: In re Thompson, 11 S.W.3d 913 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1999)); Texas: Jones. v. Fowler, 969 S.W.2d 429 (Tex. 1998); and Vermont: Titchenal v. Dexter, 693 A.2d 682 (Vt. 1997). |
In the following cases, the court allowed a non-biological co-parent to have some continued involvement with the children, upon the termination of her relationship with the children's legal mother:
| Connecticut: Laspina-Williams v. Laspina-Williams, 742 A.2d 840 (Conn. Super. Ct. 1999), holding the co-parent had visitation rights under the state visitation statute; Maryland: S.F. v. M.D., 751 A.2d 9 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 2000), holding that the co-parent was a de-facto parent and could request visitation; visitation was refused, however, because of the visitation's negative impact on the child, Gestl v. Frederick, 754 A.2d 1087 (Md. App. 2000), holding that Maryland law allowed the co-parent to show exceptional circumstances to support her request to custody; Massachusetts: E.N.O. v. L.M.M., 711 N.E.2d 886 (Mass. 1999), holding that there was no statutory authority for the co-parent's request for visitation; the court, however, ordered visitation under its equitable powers the co-parent acted as a de facto parent and the parties had a written co-parenting agreement); Minnesota: LaChapelle v. Mitten, 607 N.W.2d 151 (Minn. Ct. App. 2000), upholding an agreement between the biological mother and the co-parent to share legal custody after the couple separated; Missouri: Matter of T.L., 1996 WL 393521 (Mo. Cir. Ct. 2000) holding that, if denying custody to a co-parent resulted in actual detriment to the child, then the co-parent could obtain custody over the biological mother; however based on the facts of the case, the court ordered custody to remain with the mother and granted only reasonable visitation rights to the co-parent; New Jersey: V.C. v. M.J.B., 748 A.2d 539, 80 A.L.R.5th 663 (N.J. 2000) holding that the co-parent was a 'psychological' parent and could request joint legal custody under the 'parental' custody statute; joint legal custody was refused, however, because in the facts of the case, it would not be in best interests of the children; but see A.F. v. D.L.P., 771 A.2d 692 (N.J. Super. Ct. 2001) in which the petitioner's request for a determination of whether she had a psychological bond with the child was dismissed in summary judgment; New Mexico: A.C. v. C.B., 829 P.2d 660 (N.M. Ct. App. 1992) holding that the co-parent may have legally recognizable right to maintain some type of continuing relationship with the child and enforced the visitation provisions of the parties' settlement agreement; New York: J.C. v. C.T, 711 N.Y.S.2d 295 (Fam. Ct. 2000) in which the biological mother was estopped from dismissing the co-parent's petition for visitation, based on the mother's prior, inconsistent conduct, distinguishing the case from Alison D. v. Virginia M., 552 N.Y.S.2d 321 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990) and Lynda A. H. v. Diane T. O., 673 N.Y.S.2d 989 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998), but see Matter of Speed v. Robins, 288 A.2d 479 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002), Janis C. v. Christine T., V-1926/99 (N.Y. App. Div. May 2002); Pennsylvania: T.B. v. L.R.M. 2001 WL 1661280 (Pa. 2001) holding that the co-parent had a relationship with the child 'in loco parentis' thereby giving her standing to request visitation with the child and remanding the case to the trial court for evidence on whether granting visitation was in the child's best interests, see also Kove v. Naumoff, Penn. Ct. of Common Pleas, Associated Press (Feb. 25, 2002) ; Rhode Island: Rubano v. DiCenzo, 759 A.2d 959 (R.I. 2000), holding that the court had jurisdiction to enforce a visitation agreement between the biological mother and the co-parent; Wisconsin: In re Custody of H.S.H.-K., 533 N.W.2d 419 (Wis. 1995), overruling In re Z.J.H., 471 N.W.2d 202 (Wis. 1991) holding that the court has equitable powers to award visitation to a co-parent and enforced the parties' written co-parenting agreement. |
Cases granting parental rights to the known sperm donor in the situation involving the biological mother, her female partner and a known sperm donor, in which the parties disagreed about whether the parties intended for the sperm donor to be considered a parent of the child.
| California: Jhordan C. v. Mary K., 224 Cal. Rptr. 530 (Ct. App. 1986); Ohio: C.O. v. W.S., 639 N.E.2d 523 (Ohio 1994). |
Cases granting parental rights to the sperm donor even though the biological mother, her partner and the sperm donor agreed that the sperm donor would not have parental rights to the child.
| New York: Thomas S. v. Robin Y., 618 N.Y.S.2d 356 (App. Div. 1994), rev'g 599 N.Y.S.2d 377 (Fam. Ct. 1993). Minnesota: LaChapelle v. Mitten (In re Custody of L.M.K.O.), 607 N.W.2d 151 (Minn. Ct. App.) cert. denied, 121 S.Ct. 565 (2000). |
Case denying parental rights to the sperm donor, based on a written agreement by the biological mother, her partner and the sperm donor that the sperm donor would not have parental rights to the child.
| Oregon: Leckie & Voorhies, 875 P.2d 521 (Or. App. 1994) |
Legal Recognition of Intentional/Deliberate Parenting
| The child without any parents: California: In re Marriage of Buzzanca, 72 Cal. Rptr. 2d 280, 77 A.L.R.5th 775 (Cal. Ct. App. 1998) | ||
| Co-Parents ordered to pay child support: Press Release from Stacey L. Sobel, Esq., Pennsylvania Court Awards Child Support in Case Between Lesbian Moms, Partner considered parent, even without biological connection, Feb. 25, 2002, referring to similar cases in Delaware, California and Washington. (Washington case refused to award child support, see State ex. rel D.R.M. v. Wood, 34 P.3d 887 (2001). Pennsylvania: Kove v. Naumoff, Ct of Common Pleas, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, Feb. 25, 2002. |