Debra H. v. Janice R. - An affirmation of Second Parent Adoption
May 4, 2010
By Anthony M. Brown, Esq.
The New York Court of Appeals issued their ruling today on what had been considered to be a potentially landmark case, Debra H. v. Janice R. In their ruling, the court allowed the plaintiff, Debra H., access to her non-biological child with whom she had been denied visitation from the biological mother, Janice R. That sounds great, right? Wrong.
In doing so, the court allowed to stand the precedent notion that a biological parent can deny access of a mutually planned on, conceived and raised child, or children, to a non-biological parent. In essence, the court relied solely on the fact that the parties had entered into a Vermont Civil Union to establish parental rights between Debra H. and her child. That in itself has many repercussions for the dissolution of Vermont Civil Unions in New York, as well as other parents who have not undergone a Second Parent Adoption, which was specifically authorized by this very same court in 1995.
The court today said that without a Vermont Civil Union in this particular case, there would be no relief for a non-biological parent seeking visitation with a child who may be seriously hurt by the denial of access to both parents. Only a Second Parent Adoption would secure those rights. The court steered clear of addressing the best interests of children in such a precarious position, which seems disingenuous as the best interests of the child have always been the touchstone of family law in New York State.
This decision opens the door to challenges based on marital status, but may require couples to have lived in a jurisdiction that honors their marriage before honoring it here in New York.
The reality of this decision is that the court has punted the issue of having family law catch up to modern families to the Legislature. If past is prologue, we have an uphill battle ahead of us and the only lesson to take from this decision is to do everything you can to secure your rights to any children born into a nontraditional family through Second Parent Adoption after a child is born, and through marriage or civil union prior to the birth of any children. That said, the court’s decision fails to protect male litigants as their parental rights cannot be effectively established through marital status.
2 Responses to “Debra H. v. Janice R. - An affirmation of Second Parent Adoption”
Leave a Reply
What is really important is for women/mothers to start asserting their rights to not have any other person keep them oppressed. No person should ever be able to override a biological mother’s decision about her child. Only that women and that women alone risks her life to bring the child into the world. She carries the child alone. She gives birth to the child herself. Women/mothers do NOT need keepers to tell them what to do, make decisions for them and keep them enslaved like prisoners to some other person’s demands. No mother should ever have to litigate or lose custody or their rights in anyway when they are a fit mother. Awarding rights to any other person other than the mother is an infringment on the Mother’s Rights. It’s time for the Mother’s Liberation Movement.
KD - While I cannot imagine what it is like to give birth to a child, I can tell you that I love my son more than anything in the world. The only way I could secure my legal rights to him was through a Second Parent Adoption. In my legal practice I see too many non-biological mothers who have been rejected by their partners after they have gone through the long and emotional process of planning and having a child. The oppression I unfortunately see is when the biological mother decides that she doesn’t need her partner anymore and the current law in New York, short of Second Parent Adoption, leaves no room for equity.
I am not sure what the “keeper” reference means in your post, however, I do know that traditional heterosexual paretning models have in the past been rooted in the false notion that the woman was the property of the man. What I am refering to is honoring the commitment made between two parents to allow their child the ability, the right, to the two parents who created them. The case I was analyzing was a case for visitation, not custody. No one was trying to take a child away from a fit mother, except the biological mother herself.