Louisiana surrogacy bill to protect surrogacy arrangements advances, despite opposition from both sides of aisle

Louisiana surrogacy is legal, but right now, there are no protections for either the biological parents or the birth mother. In the eyes of the law, the woman who gives birth to a baby is the mother, so a surrogate could ultimately decide to break an agreement and keep the child, and the biological parents would have no legal recourse.

Similarly, the biological parents could decide midway through a pregnancy they no longer want the child, and the surrogate mother would be legally responsible for the child, another wrinkle in Louisiana surrogacy arrangements.

Loren McIntyre is in the process of adopting her firstborn son.

Born in January, he is 100 percent genetically her and her husband’s offspring, but the couple used a gestational carrier, or surrogate, to give birth. And in Louisiana, legally she is not the mother until the adoption is finalized this June.

gay surrogacy

Pregnant woman belly with rainbow symbol LGBT

McIntyre, who has severe endometriosis, is unable to give birth to her own children. She underwent seven unsuccessful rounds of in vitro fertilization before deciding to seek surrogacy.

McIntyre shared her story on Monday with a legislative House committee in the State Capitol in hopes lawmakers will pass a bill that creates legal safeguards in Louisiana surrogacy, where virtually none exists.

House Bill 1102 sets up a legal framework for surrogate arrangements, which bans compensation to the surrogate mother, sets age requirements, requires medical testing and counseling, and mandates background checks. Importantly, it ensures the surrogate mother cannot make a legal claim to the child, and it forbids the biological parents from being able to back out on the agreement.

An identical version of the bill was passed by the full Legislature last year but was vetoed by Gov. Bobby Jindal. On Monday, the House Committee on Civil Law and Procedure advanced the measure without objection. It goes to the full House of Representatives for consideration.

But the measure had ample opposition from both sides of the aisle.

On the left, LGBT groups opposed the language that defines the intended parents as a “man and a woman,” preventing same-sex couples from being able to use surrogacy as an avenue for parenting. The bill also requires that the embryo come from the egg and sperm of the intended parents, which again, precludes same-sex couples.

LSU Law Professor Andrea Carroll testified that while she believes there’s a need for HB1102, she believes that wording would render it unconstitutional, per last year’s U.S. Supreme Court decision legalizing same-sex marriage.

On the right, conservative anti-abortion groups testified that the act of surrogacy often requires multiple unused embryos that are frozen or discarded.

“Life starts at the embryonic stage,” said Ben Clapper, with Louisiana Right to Life. “It’s a human life that needs to be protected.”

State Rep. Stuart Bishop, the Lafayette Republican who sponsored the bill, stressed that in vitro fertilization and surrogacy already are legal.

April 18, 2016 – TheAdvocate.com by Rebekah Allen

Click here to read the entire article.

in In the News / IVF / Known Donor / Surrogacy  by Anthony Brown 0 comments

Coca-Cola Will Offer More Inclusive Parental Leave, Including Surrogacy

Citing the influence of its millennial employees and the need to promote gender equality at work, Coca-Cola on Monday announced a far more inclusive paid parental leave policy.

 

Previously, Coke only gave six to eight weeks paid parental leave to female employees who gave birth. But starting in January, all new parents at Coke — including dads, adoptive and foster parents — will be entitled to six weeks off upon the arrival of their kids. Birth mothers will also be entitled to an additional six to eight weeks leave. The new benefit is not available to unionized Coke workers. Overall 40,000 employees are eligible, out of 60,000 in the U.S.2nd parent adoption, second parent adoption, second parent adoptions, second parent adoption new york

“Fostering an inclusive workplace means valuing all parents – no matter their gender or sexual orientation,” Ceree Eberly, Coke’s chief people officer, said in an announcement on the company’s website. “We think the most successful way to structure benefits to help working families is to make them gender-neutral and encourage both moms and dads to play an active role in their family lives.”

The company, which took in $44 billion in revenue last year, said the policy was “championed” by a formal group of millennial employees who had been asked to come up with ideas for attracting and retaining younger workers. By 2020, Coke expects more than half of its workforce will be of the “millennial generation,” born between 1981 and 1997.

HuffingtonPost.com, April 18, 2016, by Emily Peck

Click here to read the entire article.

in In the News / IVF / Known Donor / Parenting / Second Parent Adoption / Step Parent Adoption / Surrogacy  by Anthony Brown 0 comments

Gay rights – Why religious freedom bills could be just the beginning of the gay marriage debate

Gay rights vs. religious protections feels like the social battle of the moment right now, and it might not go away anytime soon.

In the wake of the June Supreme Court ruling legalizing same-sex marriage, dozens of states have considered or are considering legislation to give Christians and other people protections from doing something that violates their religious belief. It’s got LGBT advocates playing whack-a-mole across the nation as they argue that these laws amount to sanctioned discrimination of gay rights.

Three battles in the South over gay rights in particular have made headlines. Mississippi recently passed a sweeping bill allowing  businesses, religious institutions and state government employees to refuse service to LGBT people. Georgia’s Gov. Nathan Deal (R) vetoed a bill aimed at protecting religious institutions from having to perform same-sex marriages. And then there’s North Carolina and its bill limiting public bathrooms and locker room access for transgender people, which is a whole other issue for another day.

We spoke to Rochelle Finzel,  director of the children and families program with the nonpartisan National Conference of State Legislatures to get a better feel for why this seems to be taking up so much oxygen now — and what could come next. It’s important to note that Finzel and her staff don’t take any positions on policy; rather they track the legislative trends related to family law. Our conversation has been edited for length and clarity.marriage equality

THE FIX: There’s a perception that laws protecting religious institutions and officials from having to perform same-sex marriages is a new phenomenon this year. But really, the 13 states that legalized same-sex marriage through state legislation included religious freedom protections too, right?

Finzel: That’s right. In some states that was the compromise; the only way they were going to get their legislation passed to legalize same-sex marriage was to make sure those religious officials were protected.

What’s happening now, after the Supreme Court ruling where now all states have to recognize same-sex marriage, I think it raised those same concerns of: How do we make sure the law is protecting those whose religious beliefs do not necessarily support same-sex marriage? So these conversations have been a little bit broader than just the solemnization question.

THE FIX: So you’re saying these new bills are controversial in part because they’re expanding beyond protecting religious institutions to how to protect the average person on the street who doesn’t agree with same-sex marriage for religious reasons? Is that a new debate?

Finzel: From my vantage point, that’s new.

The bills that have generated the most controversy and the legislation that ultimately most states, besides Mississippi, have  vetoed, that’s been where that controversy has arisen. And certainly where you see the business community weigh in.

It raises the question of: Are we then allowing discrimination if a person is able to deny services or benefits to someone based on their religious beliefs? We’re protecting one set of beliefs, but then is it discrimination on the other end? And that’s been the real question. But we are very early on in this conversation on gay rights.

THE FIX: How do you see this conversation evolving?

Finzel: This is new territory for states. They’re trying to think about the implications of same-sex marriage across a whole host of issues, from the religious protections as well as some of the family law. I think certainly the emphasis and focus right now is just on same-sex marriage and recognizing same-sex marriage.

The next piece will be, now that we have same-sex marriage and also have same-sex parents, what are the implications in terms of custody, parentage, paternity and all those related issues — child support, child custody, adoption.

THE FIX: When the Supreme Court legalized same-sex marriage in June, was your reaction like, ‘Oh man, get ready for this huge legislative battle in the states,’ or have all these developments surprised you?

Finzel: It may have happened more quickly than we had anticipated. But it certainly has been on our radar. We were thinking, ‘What will this do for family law?’ And I’m not so sure that anyone really has all of the answers to that question yet.

THE FIX: Why are bathroom bills happening in conjunction with all this?

Finzel: That’s a good question. Maybe it’s a question to pose to some of the advocates on these issues. Has that been part of their platform as well?

THE FIX: Is it fair to say the religious protection vs. gay rights discussion has been centered in the South, which tends to have a higher concentration of social and religious conservatives who don’t necessarily agree with same-sex marriage?

Finzel: I think it’s a discussion around the country. All states are — and especially where the Supreme Court ruling was the first time they had to recognize same-sex marriage — sort of deer in the headlights, like, ‘Okay, what do we do?’ And I would say that’s across the board.

There are some that are looking at family law, some looking at how we change the language of our statutes so they reflect a more gender-neutral portrayal of family structures. We see more activity in the Republican states, but it’s not that it hasn’t been introduced or discussed in Democratic states. Family issues are not partisan.

by Amber Phillips, Washington Post – April 13, 2106

Click here to read the entire article.

in In the News / Legal / Legislation  by Anthony Brown 0 comments

Landmark China Same Sex Marriage Case Rejected

China Same Sex Marriage Case Rejected Dealing Gay Rights Movement A Major Blow

BEIJING (Reuters) – A court in China on Wednesday rejected a landmark China same sex marriage case by two men who had sought permission to get legally married, one of the plaintiffs said, a decision that shines the light on gay rights in the world’s most populous nation.

While homosexuality is not illegal in China, and large cities have thriving gay scenes, same-sex marriage is not legal, and same-sex couples have no legal protections.international surrogacy

In what activists hailed as a step forward for gay rights, Sun Wenlin, 26, had lodged the suit with a court in the southern Chinese city of Changsha against a civil affairs bureau that denied him the right to marry.

But after a short hearing, the court turned down his request to marry, Sun said.

“Of course I’m not very pleased about it but I’m not going to give up,” he told Reuters by telephone. “I plan to appeal.”

Sun said he had filed the lawsuit in December because he wanted to form a family unit with his 36-year-old partner.

Sun previously told Reuters he had tried to register to marry his boyfriend at the Furong district civil affairs bureau in June but was rejected by an official who told him “marriage had to be between a man and woman.”

April 13, 2016 – Huffingtonpost.com, via Reuters

Click to read the entire article.

in Education / In the News / International  by Anthony Brown 0 comments

NY Appeals court: Divorcing lesbian mother has parental rights

A state appeals court has upheld a Suffolk Family Court decision finding that two women who are divorcing are the legal parents of their children, including the one who did not give birth to them.

The unanimous decision for the Appeals court, Appellate Division’s Second Department, written by Justice Sheri Roman, finds that Kelly Steagall, 47, now of Arizona, has the right to seek visitation of the children born during her marriage to Farah Martin, 40, who grew up in Nesconset.

As in last year’s ruling by Suffolk Family Court Judge Deborah Poulos, Roman noted that the issue is affected by many factors, including the validity of California law in New York, whether a sperm donor who was a friend to the couple has any parental responsibilities and how the two women raised the children when they were together.

Steagall and Martin had three kids together. Steagall gave birth to the first one, and Martin carried the other two.

The couple later moved to Long Island and then separated. Martin went to Family Court seeking to deny Steagall’s parental rights to the younger two children, arguing that because Steagall never adopted them, an informal artificial insemination process left the children’s legal parentage in doubt.

Roman’s decision said that makes no difference.marriage equality

“The parties made an informed, mutual decision to conceive the subject children via artificial insemination and to raise them together, first while in a registered domestic partnership in California and, later, while legally married in that state,” Roman wrote. “Additionally, the children were given [Steagall’s] surname, [Steagall] was named as a parent on each birth certificate and the parties raised the children from the time of their births … until the parties separated.”

Steagall said she is grateful for the decision, but worries the protracted legal battle and her inability to see her children regularly has damaged her relationship with them.

“There was borderline parental alienation going on, and I feel that’s still going on,” she said. “My kids will barely speak to me on the phone.”

Steagall’s appellate attorney, Christopher Chimeri of Hauppauge, said the ruling now enables Steagall to have a fair fight for visitation. He said courts are going to see more such cases.

“The law is, in effect, catching up to how families are formed and maintained,” he said.

by Andrew Smith, April 8, 2016 – newyorknewsday.com

Click here to read the entire article.

in Anonymous/Known Donation / In the News / Legal / Second Parent Adoption / Step Parent Adoption  by Anthony Brown 0 comments

Mississippi Same-Sex Adoption Ban Unconstitutional

Mississippi Same-Sex Adoption Ban Unconstitutional: The Supreme Court “foreclosed litigation over laws interfering with the right to marry and ‘rights and responsibilities intertwined with marriage,’” a federal judge ruled Thursday.

WASHINGTON — A federal judge in Mississippi on Thursday afternoon halted enforcement of the state’s ban on same-sex couples adopting children.

Citing the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2015 decision ending bans on same-sex couples’ marriages, U.S. District Court Judge Daniel P. Jordan III granted a preliminary injunction against the state’s Department of Human Services in a case filed this past August.gay rights, lgbt adoption rights, adoption rights, gay adoption rights, gay adoption new york

Of the Supreme Court’s decision, Jordan wrote, “[T]he majority opinion foreclosed litigation over laws interfering with the right to marry and ‘rights and responsibilities intertwined with marriage.’”

Jordan concluded on Thursday: “The majority of the United States Supreme Court dictates the law of the land, and lower courts are bound to follow it. In this case, that means that [the adoption ban] violates the Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution.”

The case was brought by same-sex couples seeking to adopt through the foster care system or private adoptions, as well as by the Campaign for Southern Equality and the Family Equality Council. They snagged Roberta Kaplan as their lead attorney in the challenge — the lawyer who represented Edie Windsor in her successful challenge to the Defense of Marriage Act and then Mississippi same-sex couples who successfully challenged the state’s same-sex marriage ban.

While Jordan did grant their requested preliminary injunction, he also granted the requests made by many of the defendants to be removed from the lawsuit. Jordan granted requests to dismiss the complaint against Mississippi Gov. Phil Bryant, Attorney General Jim Hood, and several judges — finding that they were not the appropriate parties to be sued by the couples and groups.

Buzzfeed.com, by Chris Gender – March 31, 2016

in Adoption / Ethics / In the News / Legal / Parenting  by Anthony Brown 0 comments

Parental Rights battle in Michigan: When law doesn’t call you mom

Lesbian couple who used artificial insemination to have kids fight over parental rights now that they’ve split up.

For the last eight years, Jennifer Zunk’s life has been filled with motherly duties.

Changing diapers. Pediatrician visits. Making lunches. Doing laundry.

The kids call her mom. But the law doesn’t.

In a thorny custody case involving a lesbian couple who used artificial insemination to have a family, Zunk is in the fight of her life to protect her parental rights with two children she has raised since birth. She and her partner of 15 years broke up last year, and her ex-partner is now trying to terminate Zunk’s guardianship of their 8-year-old daughter and 6-year-old son.gay family law

But Zunk is fighting back as she faces what could best be described as a medical and legal conundrum — a difficult situation in which the law and technology are out of step. Technology allowed the two women — one a doctor; the other a teacher — to have and raise children together. But the law doesn’t recognize them both as parents.

That’s because of another legal snafu: The women broke up before same-sex marriage was legalized in the U.S., so Zunk couldn’t adopt the children because Michigan didn’t allow it. As it stands, the law only recognizes one parent: Her ex-partner — 47-year-old urologist Carin Hopps of Monroe, who delivered both children after being impregnated using in vitro fertilization. She is the biological parent of the daughter, who was conceived using a sperm donor. But she’s not biologically related to the son, who was conceived using a donor egg and a donor sperm.

Both women have been in the children’s lives since birth. Both entered into agreements to use egg donors. Both have paid for their upbringing. And the kids, who have hyphenated last names for each parent, call them both mom.

Welcome to America’s latest custody battle — a new and even more complicated fight over parental rights involving same-sex couples who used artificial reproductive technology to have babies and raise them together, but then break up with one parent then claiming “they’re mine.” Family law experts say the law isn’t exactly clear on how to handle this scenario, which has left parents like Zunk wondering: Will I lose my children?

“It’s the wild, wild West out here,” said Zunk’s attorney, Dana Nessel, who believes Michigan has outdated custody laws that are costing same-sex spouses their parental rights. “It’s not a disaster waiting to happen — there are disasters which occur on a regular basis, needlessly. Other states are literally light-years ahead of Michigan in this regard.”

Detroit Free Press, by Tressa Baldas, March 20, 2016

Click here to read the entire article.

in In the News / Legal / Parenting  by Anthony Brown 0 comments

New Jersey Court Awards Three Parent Custody to Family

In a first-impression ruling breaking new ground for New Jersey, Superior Court Judge Stephanie M. Wauters created three parent custody in her ruling in D.G. & S.H. v. K.S., 2016 WL 482622, 2015 N.J. Super. LEXIS 218 (N.J. Super. Ct., Ocean County, Aug. 24, 2015, approved for publication, Feb. 5, 2016), stating that a child’s birth parents, a gay man and a straight woman who conceived the child through assisted reproductive technology, should share joint legal custody together with the father’s same-sex spouse, who was found by the court to be a psychological parent of the child.

In the same ruling, Judge Wauters held that the mother could not relocate with the child to the west coast in order to live with her boyfriend, as the child would be adversely affected by the impact of such a move on her relationship with her fathers. However, Wauters ruled, while treating the biological father’s husband as a joint residential custodian parent, she could not declare him a legal parent of the child, since New Jersey’s law on parentage adheres to the traditional paths to that status of genetic contribution, gestation or adoption, and none of those methods of attaining parental status were presented in this case.

lgbt family law

The child, identified in the opinion as O.S.H., was born in 2009. D.G. is her biological father, and K.S. is the biological mother. S.H. is D.G.’s husband. The much-simplified story of the case is that D.G., S.H. and K.S. began in the fall of 2006 to discuss the possibility of conceiving a child together and raising the child with a tri-partite parenting arrangement. They decided to use D.G.’s sperm because he and K.S. had been long-time friends. They decided not to use a doctor’s assistance, instead following directions in a book on the “Baster Method,” by which they accomplished insemination at home, although K.S.’s first pregnancy ended in a miscarriage. After O.S.H. was born, D.G, S.H. and K.S. shared parenting responsibilities. The child mainly lived with her mother with frequent visitation with the fathers. D.G. operated a business (with flexible hours) at the Jersey Shore, and S.H. was employed as a New York City high school teacher. K.S. worked in a New Jersey restaurant owned by her parents. The men shared an apartment in Manhattan as their primary residence. The parents spent most of the summer after O.S.H. was born in a small house in Point Pleasant Beach owned by K.S., and at the end of the summer the men decided to rent their own home in Point Pleasant Beach for ease in shared parenting of the child. Parenting time fluctuated depending on the work commitments of the various parents. K.S. owned a home in Costa Rica where she would spend part of the winters with the child, and where the men occasionally visited. After Superstorm Sandy in October 2012 damaged the New Jersey coastal homes, the child spent more time with her fathers in New York City.

By Art Leonard, March 7, 2016 – Le-Gal.org

Click here to read the entire article.

in Anonymous/Known Donation / In the News / Legal / Second Parent Adoption  by Anthony Brown 0 comments

Supreme Court Restores Visitation Rights to Lesbian Adoptive Mother

WASHINGTON — In a pair of unsigned opinions, the Supreme Court on Monday restored the rights of a lesbian adoptive mother who had split with her partner and reversed a murder conviction tainted by prosecutorial misconduct.

 

The adoption ruling reversed one by the Alabama Supreme Court, which had refused to recognize the woman’s adoptions of three children, which had been granted by a Georgia court in 2007.

The woman, identified in court papers as V.L., said she was overjoyed.

“I have been my children’s mother in every way for their whole lives,” she said in a statement. “I thought that adopting them meant that we would be able to be together always. When the Alabama court said my adoption was invalid and I wasn’t their mother, I didn’t think I could go on.”

The United States Supreme Court’s opinion, which was unsigned and had no noted dissents, said the Alabama court had violated the Constitution’s “full faith and credit” clause. “A state may not disregard the judgment of a sister state because it disagrees with the reasoning underlying the judgment or deems it to be wrong on the merits,” the opinion said.

Supreme Court

The two women in the case, V.L. v. E.L., No. 15-648, were in a committed relationship that started in 1995 and lasted about 17 years. They shared a last name.

One of them, identified in court papers as E.L., gave birth to a child in 2002 and to twins in 2004, both times by insemination from an anonymous donor. They raised the children together in Alabama until they broke up in 2011, and the adoptive mother, V.L., continued to see the children for a time afterward.

When a dispute about the visits arose, V.L. turned to an Alabama court, which granted her visitation rights based on the Georgia adoption judgment. The Alabama Supreme Court reversed that, saying in an unsigned opinion that the Georgia judgment was not entitled to the “full faith and credit” ordinarily required by the Constitution “to the public acts, records and judicial proceedings of every other state.”

The Alabama Supreme Court reasoned that the Georgia court had misunderstood Georgia law in allowing the adoption, saying that “Georgia law makes no provision for a nonspouse to adopt a child without first terminating the parental rights of the current parents.”

by Adam Liptak – New York Times, March 7, 2016

Click here to read the entire article.

 

in Adoption / In the News / Legal  by Anthony Brown 0 comments

China bans depictions of gay people on television

Content that ‘exaggerates dark side of society’ is banned from TV in China – from homosexuality to adultery, showing cleavage and even reincarnation.

 

The Chinese government has banned all depictions of gay people on television, as part of a cultural crackdown on “vulgar, immoral and unhealthy content”.

Chinese censors have released new regulations for content that “exaggerates the dark side of society” and now deem homosexuality, extramarital affairs, one night stands and underage relationships as illegal on screen.

Last week the Chinese government pulled a popular drama, Addicted, from being streamed on Chinese websites as it follows two men in gay relationships, causing uproar among the show’s millions of viewers.

Chinese surrogacy

The government said the show contravened the new guidelines, which state that “No television drama shall show abnormal sexual relationships and behaviors, such as incest, same-sex relationships, sexual perversion, sexual assault, sexual abuse, sexual violence, and so on.”

The ban also extends to smoking, drinking, adultery, sexually suggestive clothing, even reincarnation. China’s State Administration of Press, Publication, Radio, Film and Television told television producers it would constantly monitor TV channels to ensure the new rules were strictly adhered to.

The clampdown follows an increase in cultural censorship in China since Xi Jinping came to power in November 2012. In December 2014, censors stopped a TV show, The Empress of China, from being broadcast because the actors showed too much cleavage. The show only returned to screens once the breasts had been blurred out.

In September 2015, a documentary about young gay Chinese called Mama Rainbow was taken down from all Chinese websites.

The Guardian, March 4, 2016

Click here to read the entire article.

in In the News / International  by Anthony Brown 0 comments