Judge In Texas Blocks Plan To Extend Family Leave Benefits To Married Gay Couples

March 27, 2015 by Carlos Santoscoy

A federal judge in Texas has temporarily blocked implementation of a plan to extend family leave benefits to married gay couples.

U.S. District Judge Reed O’Connor granted the preliminary junction sought by Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton (pictured) that stays expansion of the federal definition of “spouse” in the Family Medical Leave Act to include the legal husband or wife of a gay worker.

The change was set to take effect Friday.

Under the law, employers must allow unpaid time off for employees facing certain family emergencies.

Paxton argued that the new regulation would force state agencies to violate Texas’ 2005 voter-approved constitutional amendment defining marriage as a heterosexual union.

“This lawsuit is about defending the sovereignty of our state, and we will continue to protect Texas from the unlawful overreach of the federal government,” Paxton said in filing the lawsuit.

“Texans have clearly defined the institution of marriage in our state, and attempts by the Obama administration to disregard the will of our citizens through the use of new federal rules is unconstitutional and an affront to the foundations of federalism,” he added.

Arkansas, Louisiana and Nebraska joined the lawsuit.

Click here to read the entire article.

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

Bill would require fertility benefits for lesbians

The Baltimore Sun, by Michael Dresser, March 18, 2015

f Fiona M. Jardine had a husband, the expensive fertility treatments she’s now undergoing would be covered by her health plan.

But Jardine, 29, is married to a woman, so she and her wife have to pay out of pocket.

A bill that would grant married lesbian couples the same fertility treatment benefits as husbands and wives is advancing in the Maryland General Assembly. The measure passed unanimously in a House subcommittee Tuesday, and full Senate and House committees are likely to vote this week.

Del. Terri L. Hill, the bill’s House sponsor, said the measure is designed to bring consistency to state law, given Maryland voters’ approval of same-sex marriage in 2012.

“We’re concerned that we correct the law to reflect Maryland’s state on marriage equality,” said Hill, a Democrat who represents Howard and Baltimore counties. “It was about making sure all Marylanders are treated in an equitable fashion.”

Maryland has required state-regulated health insurance plans that offer pregnancy-related benefits to cover the costs of in vitro fertilization since 2000. It is one of a dozen states that require coverage of the procedure, which involves fertilizing the egg outside the woman’s body and implanting the embryo in the uterus.

That law includes a requirement that only the husband’s sperm can be used in any covered in vitro procedure — a provision that excludes lesbians using donated sperm. Hill’s bill, sponsored in the Senate by Montgomery County Democrat Cheryl Kagan, would remove that requirement for same-sex couples.

And if an insurer chooses to provide more extensive fertility coverage to heterosexual couples, same-sex couples would have to be offered the same.

“It’s all about equality. It’s all about updating our laws,” Kagan said.

Jardine, a graduate assistant at the University of Maryland College Park, said she was dismayed to learn that her insurance carrier would not cover the costly form of artificial insemination she needs because of a medical condition. The sticking point was that she and her wife, Jo Arnone, 57, would be using donor sperm instead of a husband’s sperm.

Click here to read the entire article.

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

The Metro Areas With the Largest, and Smallest, Gay Populations

New York Times, March 20, 2015 by David Leonhart and Claire Cain Miller

The Census Bureau asks Americans about subjects as varied as race, religion, annual income and even their source of home heating. But there is one glaring demographic omission: The census does not ask people about their sexual orientation. As a result, there has long been a shroud of uncertainty around the geography of gay and lesbian Americans.

A new analysis of Gallup survey data offers the most detailed estimates yet about where people who identify as gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender live.

The Gallup analysis finds the largest concentrations in the West — and not just in the expected places like San Francisco and Portland, Ore. Among the nation’s 50 largest metropolitan areas, Denver and Salt Lake City are also in the top 10. How could Salt Lake be there, given its well-known social conservatism? It seems to be a kind of regional capital of gay life, attracting people from other parts of Utah and the Mormon West.

On the other hand, some of the East Coast places with famous gay neighborhoods, including in New York, Miami and Washington, have a smaller percentage of their population who identify as gay — roughly average for a big metropolitan area. The least gay urban areas are in the Midwest and South.

Significant as these differences are, the similarities are just as notable. Gay America, rather than being confined to a few places, spreads across every major region of the country. Nationwide, Gallup says, 3.6 percent of adults consider themselves gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender. And even the parts of the country outside the 50 biggest metropolitan areas have a gay population (about 3 percent) not so different from some big metropolitan areas. It’s a reflection in part of increasing tolerance and of social connections made possible by the Internet.

Frank Newport, the editor in chief of Gallup, notes that the regional variation in sexual orientation is much smaller than the variation in many other categories. The share of San Francisco’s population that’s gay is only two and a half times larger than the share outside major metro areas. The regional gaps in political attitudes, religion and ethnic makeup are often much wider.

Click here to read the entire article.

in In the News  by Anthony Brown 0 comments

IVF test improves chances of implantation by pinpointing fertility window

March 10, 2015 – the guardian.com

Thousands of infertile couples could benefit from a new test that tailors the timing of IVF treatment to a woman’s individual cycle for the first time.

The scientists behind the technique believe that IVF frequently fails because the embryo is transferred at the wrong time, missing a crucial fertility window.

The new test assesses the activity of genes of the womb lining to pinpoint a woman’s optimum time for treatment and in pilot studies the personalised approach appeared to significantly boost success rates.

Prof Juan Garcia-Velasco, of the IVI fertility clinic in Madrid, said: “We think that about 15% of cases of implantation failure are simply due to bad timing.” Prof Garcia-Velasco is now leading a clinical trial of the test, involving 2,500 patients in more than ten countries, including Britain.

Geeta Nargund, medical director of Create Fertility whose London clinic is participating, said: “The weakest link in IVF is implantation failure. I believe this is a breakthrough.”

There are more than 60,000 IVF cycles in Britain each year, but just 24% of these treatments lead to live births. Clinics currently check the visual appearance of the womb lining using ultrasound, giving a general indication of health.

“What we have never known is the right window of implantation,” said Nargund. “If you miss that window, no matter how beautiful the embryo, it’s not going to implant.”

For most women there is a two to four day stretch when the lining, or endometrium, sends out crucial chemical signals that allow the embryo to attach. For some women the fertile window is shifted earlier or later in the cycle or is unusually brief, however.

Click here to read the entire article.

in In the News / International / IVF / Science  by Anthony Brown 0 comments

Alabama Judge Refuses To Approve Adoption Of Lesbian Couple Who Fought Gay Marriage Ban

ontopmag.com, February 26, 2015

Less than two weeks after a lesbian couple won the right to have their marriage recognized in Alabama, Mobile County’s probate judge has refused to process the couple’s adoption petition.

Cari Searcy and Kimberly McKeand, together over 15 years, exchanged vows in California in 2008.

In 2005, McKeand gave birth to the couple’s son, K.S.

In 2012, Mobile County Probate Judge Don Davis denied Searcy’s request to adopt K.S., citing the state’s law that only married couples may adopt their partner’s children. Davis determined that Searcy was not a “spouse” of McKeand because Alabama does not recognize their out-of-state marriage.

The women challenged the state’s marriage ban and won. U.S. District Judge Callie “Ginny” Granade declared unconstitutional an Alabama law and constitutional amendment limiting marriage to heterosexual couples. Her ruling took effect on Monday, February 9 after the Supreme Court refused to block its implementation.

Davis refused to comply with the ruling until Granade ordered him to begin issuing marriage licenses to gay couples.

According to AL.com, Davis has indicated that he will not process the women’s adoption petition until the Supreme Court rules in a case challenging marriage bans in four states.

A lawyer for the couple called Davis’ decision “disappointing.”

Click here to read the entire article.

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

Surrogacy Agency Pleads Guilty To Ripping Off Would-Be Parents Who Paid for Egg Donations

By Newsroom America Staff at 23 Feb 09:38

(Newsroom America) — The owner of a Glendora egg donation and surrogacy company has pled guilty to a federal wire fraud charge and admitted defrauding would-be parents, egg donors and surrogates over the course of more than three years.

Allison Layton, a 38-year-old resident of Star, Idaho, pleaded guilty before United States District Court Judge George H. Wu.

Layton, who owned and operated Miracles Egg Donation and sometimes used the name Allison Jarvie, lived in Glendora during the course of the scheme.

Between August 2008 and January 2012, would-be parents—who in the surrogacy and egg donation world are known as intended parents—paid thousands of dollars for egg donation and surrogacy services that Miracles promised to coordinate.

Layton took money—often tens of thousands of dollars—from the intended parents, but, instead of putting the funds into escrow accounts to be withdrawn only for certain costs related to the surrogacy or egg donation, Layton used the money for her own personal expenses or to cover unpaid costs related to other clients.

As a result of Layton’s misappropriation of client funds, egg donors, surrogates, attorneys and others often were not paid for all the services they provided and intended parents often did not receive all the services for which they had paid. At least one investor in Miracles also lost money.

When the donors, surrogates and intended parents sought to recover their money and costs, Layton would lull them into believing they would be repaid through false assurances that payments had already been made or would be made soon.

Click here to read the entire article.

in In the News / Surrogacy  by Anthony Brown 0 comments

Gay couple stuck in Mexican legal limbo after birth of surrogate twins

El Pais – Mexico City 12 FEB 2015

Luis Delgado and José Antonio Fernández, a gay married couple from Spain, decided to have a child via a surrogate mother in Mexico. Their twins were born on January 6, but the four of them have found themselves unable to return together to their home country.

Due to a legal anomaly, they cannot secure passports for their children, given that the state of Tabasco, Mexico, where the surrogacy took place, recognizes surrogate births, while the Secretariat of Foreign Affairs (SRE) – the government department responsible for Mexican passport applications – does not.

The couple say they have heard “very positive words” from the Spanish authorities, but nothing more.

It is illegal for couples to have children via surrogates in Spain, but if the country where the surrogacy takes place officially confirms that the couple (whether they are homosexual or heterosexual) are the biological parents of the children in question, they can be registered in Spain and obtain Spanish passports. If not, the mother must appear on the paperwork. But Delgado and Fernández cannot produce an acceptable version of that certificate for the authorities.

The pair signed a surrogacy contract in Mexico last year, and when the babies were born they registered them in Tabasco with José Antonio as the father, and on another part of the form, Luis as the other parent. The part of the form where the mother should have appeared was left blank.

Click here to read the entire article.

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

N.J. gay couple’s custody battle with sperm donor could set precedent

South Jersey Times – February 9, 2015 by Andy Polhamus

A lesbian couple from Salem County are locked in a custody battle over their son after a sperm donor sued them for parenting time.

The outcome of their case, according to their attorney and a Rutgers law professor, might change the status of reproductive rights for couples around New Jersey who conceive by artificial means.

Sheena and Tiara Yates of Pennsville had a son who was conceived by at-home artificial insemination — known colloquially as alternative insemination — in June 2013 under the counsel of a physician. The couple already had a toddler, also conceived by artificial insemination from a different donor, and had drawn up contracts in which both men relinquished their legal paternity.

It looked for a while as though everything had gone smoothly. In the same five-month span between December 2013 and April 2014, however, both sperm donors came forward and filed for visiting rights with each child.

State law addressing artificial insemination and domestic issues, as the Yateses discovered, says that only when the insemination process is carried out under the direct supervision of a physician, can the non-biological parent be legally considered the natural parent of the child. The law also protects the donor from having any “rights or duties stemming from the conception of the child.”

The Yates family lost the first custody case, and that donor now has visitation time with the older child — a court ruling the couple decided not to dispute. The same thing happened with the second suit in September after a Salem County Superior Court judge ruled in favor of the donor, Shawn Sorrell. His parenting time begins with a few hours each weekend in addition to paying $83 a week in child support.

“Emotionally it’s very hard for us,” said Sheena Yates. “All we want is a family, and we can’t have kids without an outside party. It’s a lot for us to have to deal with. It’s not just hard on us, it’s hard on the kids, too.”

The Yateses asked that their children’s names not be revealed to protect their privacy.

The couple’s son is now a year old, and according to Sheena, had not met his biological father until visitation began. Sorrell, of Wilmington, Delaware, is representing himself in the case. He could not be reached for comment.

As they file their appeal with the Superior Court of New Jersey’s appellate division, the Yateses not only argue that the precise location of the procedure should be irrelevant, but also hope one major factor will influence an appellate court’s decision about custody over their younger child. They had no legal recognition of their relationship when their first child was born, but have been in a civil union since 2011 and got married in May 2014.

“The question now is whether the presumption of marriage is stronger than the artificial insemination statute,” said Kimberly Mutcherson, a professor of law at Rutgers-Camden. “You’re battling out two different parts of the statutory scheme and figuring out which one would prevail.”

Without the marriage aspect, she added, the case would be fairly cut and dry.

“It’s a core mistake people make. The court says if you go to a physician and do it their way, [donors] don’t have a legal connection to the child,” Mutcherson said. “When you don’t have that anymore, you have two people on equal footing. At that point it’s just a custody proceeding.”

John Keating, the Glassboro-based attorney representing the Yateses, said he hopes the question of marital status will strengthen their case.

“We think it’s important the appellate division make a decision. Our purpose here is for other couples not to go through this. They set out to start a family together, and they did what they thought was the right thing,” he said. “They entered into contracts with sperm donors, they consulted a physician and are now in a position of raising two children with two sperm donors instead of being two parents and their children. Now there are four parents raising these children.”

Sheena said she hopes bringing attention to her case will help other couples avoid similar problems in the future.

“It’s not just us,” she said. “It’s thousands of others who could go through it, too, and it affects people’s lives every day.”

Keating also argues that their consultation of a physician should hold up in court, despite the fact that the procedure was carried out at home. Furthermore, he said, the court’s interpretation that artificial insemination must be carried out only by a doctor puts lower-income people, gay or straight, at a disadvantage. Fertility clinics carry a hefty price tag, and sperm banks aren’t cheap.

“We don’t think this is an anti-LGBT decision,” Keating said, but noted that even initial fees at most sperm banks tally about $1,000. “But we do think it disparately impacts LGBT couples, and disproportionately impacts lower-income people.”

Mutcherson agreed.

Click here to read the entire article.

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

AG recommends recognizing same-sex parents in Israel

ynetnews.com, February 9, 2015 by Aviel Magnezi

Israel takes step towards granting parental rights to same-sex parents, as AG says state should give recognize partner of biological parent, instead of forcing them to legally adopt child.

Attorney General Yehuda Weinstein submitted a precedent-setting request to the family court on Sunday, recommending that the same-sex partner of a biological birth mother be regarded as a legal parent.

The recommendation pertains to same-sex parents of a child born through sperm donation. Currently, the non-biological partner was forced to adopt their partner’s biological child in order to be listed as a legal parent.

In 2003, the Supreme Court ruled that the partner of a biological parent can be registered as the child’s parent in the civil registry, following a US court ruling that ordered to allow the names of a same-sex couple on birth certificates.

 

Click here to read the entire article.

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

Adoption hope for same-sex couples in Bermuda

February 6, 2015 – The Royal Gazette By Owain Johnston-Barnes

Unmarried and same-sex couples can apply to jointly adopt children, according to a recent judgment in the Supreme Court.

Under the Adoption Act 2006, unmarried couples have been unable to jointly adopt children. Bermuda does not recognise same-sex marriage, so the Act also indirectly banned same-sex couples from joint adoption.

But in a judgment dated February 3, Puisne Judge Stephen Hellman ruled that section of the Act represented unlawful discrimination.

The ruling came after an unnamed same-sex couple wanted to adopt a nine-month-old child they had been raising together.

They were told by the Department of Child and Family Services (DCFS) that, as an unmarried couple, they would have to make separate applications, which would be processed and considered separately. The couple argued that requiring a separate process was discriminatory and sought a declaration from the Court that the Adoption Act should be read in a manner which is consistent with the Human Rights Act, which forbids discrimination on the grounds of marital status and sexual orientation.

The department argued that having the couple processed separately would not constitute less favourable treatment. In the judgment, Mr Justice Hellman found that “marital status” included both the state of being married and unmarried.

“If one is a status so, too, is the other,” he stated. “Permitting a joint application by a married couple but not an unmarried couple is discriminatory in that it involves treating the unmarried couple less favourably than the married couple by providing adoption services to the one couple but not the other.

“For the reasons given by the plaintiffs, I therefore reject the defendants’ submission that processing the plaintiffs’ applications separately, with the possibility of a separate adoption order in the case of each plaintiff, would not constitute less favourable treatment.

“It would, however, constitute a refusal to provide them with adoption services of a like quality, in the like manner and on the like terms on which the DCFS normally makes them available to other members of the public, namely applicants who are married couples.

“It is in any case doubtful whether the Act would permit the court to entertain two applications for the adoption of the same child.

“The argument that it would involve a strained construction of the statutory language to which a court would likely only have recourse if it were necessary to avoid applying that section in an unlawfully discriminatory way.

“As it would not achieve that end, there is no good reason to construe the section in this way.”

He ruled that the statutory ban on the couple to adopt was unlawful, noting that the same position had already been taken by courts in Britain, Canada, Gibraltar, and South Africa.

Click here to read the entire article.

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