From Coast to Coast, Changing Laws to Protect Our Families

From Mombian.com – May 27, 2014

A new law in Washington, D.C. is drawing lesbian couples from other jurisdictions to give birth there — and a bill making its way through the California legislature could simplify the paperwork and clarify parenting arrangements for same-sex couples in that state.

A new law in Washington, D.C. allows courts to grant second-parent adoptions to out-of-state lesbian couples if their child was born in D.C., even if the parents don’t reside there, reports the Washington Post. This law is leading to an increasing, though unspecified, number of lesbian couples from neighboring states coming to D.C. to deliver their babies. Next-door Virginia, for example, only grants adoptions to married couples, and does not recognize marriages of same-sex couples. Couples have also come from as far afield as North Carolina and Ohio in order to give their children the protection of two legal parents. [Update: Bill Singer, a lawyer in New Jersey who did the parentage order for my spouse and I when we were expecting our son, commented on Twitter that: “NJ has long had law allowing adoption for child born here. My clients from non-recog states call it the underground birth canal.”]

It’s a hassle, indeed, especially since children have a habit of sending our bodies into labor when we don’t expect it. Of course, second-parent adoption is in itself a hassle. We shouldn’t have to adopt children that we planned for with a partner. More states now allow both parents’ names to be on the birth certificate, which is great, and allows for protection from the moment of birth — but other states may not recognize the non-biological parent’s right to be there if they don’t recognize the parents’ relationship in the first place. Second-parent adoption is more secure — but is still a financial and emotional hassle, requiring fees and a home study.

Click here to read the entire article.

New Jersey Officials Make Deal On Adoption Records

philadelphia.cbslocal.com – April 28, 2014

TRENTON, N.J. (CBS/AP) — Gov. Chris Christie and lawmakers have struck a deal to allow people adopted in New Jersey access to their birth records, but the compromise puts the opening of records on hold for nearly three years to give birth parents time to have their names removed from birth certificates.

The deal is expected to become law, with Democratic leaders in both chambers of the Democrat-controlled Legislature hailing it. It would cap a 34-year push by a group of advocates for adoptees and their biological parents to open the records in New Jersey for the first time since they were sealed in 1940.

Click here to read the entire article.

ThinkProgress.org, April 3, 2014 – by Andrew Cray

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) announced today that same-sex spouses will be recognized in administering several aspects of the Medicare program, regardless of where the couple lives. CMS works with the Social Security Administration to conduct eligibility determinations and to enroll seniors and individuals with certain disabilities in the program. Social Security updated their own marriage recognition policies earlier this week to streamline the handling of marriage-based claims involving transgender people. The announcement is the latest step implementing the Supreme Court’s decision overturning the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).

Social Security will now begin processing Medicare enrollment, requests for Special Enrollment Periods, and requests for reductions in late-enrollment penalties  for many same-sex spouses. Eligibility for Medicare Part A and Part B coverage is particularly important for these families, who are disproportionately likely to be uninsured. Medicare Part A coverage is often available without paying a monthly premium, making it important for the many lesbian, gay, and bisexual people who struggle to afford coverage.

CMS’s decision also impacts some people who previously applied for a Special Enrollment Period but were denied eligibility because of DOMA. For some of these couples, Social Security will be able to approve a second request for a Special Enrollment Period, giving more immediate access to Medicare coverage.

Click here to read the entire article.

And Surrogacy Makes 3 – In New York, a Push for Compensated Surrogacy

By

A month before their baby’s due date, Brad Hoylman and David Sigal got a call from the woman they had hired to have their child.

She was having contractions; come right away.

Mr. Sigal, a filmmaker, had the more flexible schedule. So after a sleepless night, he hopped on a plane to San Diego while Mr. Hoylman stayed in New York and frantically oversaw the dusty conversion of their TV room into a nursery.

The contractions turned out to be a false alarm, but Mr. Sigal stayed. And stayed, touching up his documentary in his hotel room, going to family outings — a picnic, a cheerleading event — with the surrogate and her daughters, and calling Mr. Hoylman “every 10 minutes” with updates.

Four weeks later, the baby was induced, and Mr. Hoylman flew in for the birth.

‘The timing was perfect,” Mr. Hoylman said. “I cut the cord and David —”

“Held her,” Mr. Sigal finished the sentence.

Such is the world of gestational surrogacy, in which a woman is paid to go through the pregnancy and birth of a child who is not genetically related to her and then promises to give that child away. To anyone who has had a baby, or known someone who has, the couple’s tireless zest for reciting their daughter’s birth story will bring a knowing smile, maybe a jaded shrug. But for Mr. Sigal and Mr. Hoylman, two gay men, the birth narrative carries with it an extra frisson of the illicit that seems to them more than a little archaic and unfair in the post-marriage-equality world.

Click here to read the entire article.

A Quick Guide To The Research On Same-Sex Parenting (As Presented To The Federal Courts)

By Zack Ford, ThinkProgress.org, October 28, 2013

Two marriage equality cases are advancing to the Ninth Circuit of Appeals from the states of Nevada (Sevcik v. Sandoval) and Hawaii (Jackson v. Abercrombie). In both cases, marriage equality lost at the district court level, distinguishing them from the case challenging California’s Proposition 8 and essentially freeing them of the jurisdictional issues that complicated the Prop 8 case. This means that the two cases provide an opportunity for the court to directly consider the constitutionality of states banning same-sex marriage.

Zach-Wahls-DNC-2012-200x300Numerous professional organizations submitted amicus briefs last week advising the court about why it should support marriage equality and in particular, addressing the question of same-sex parenting. Opponents assert that same-sex marriage should be banned because children fare better with different-sex parents than with same-sex parents. Not only does this ignore the fact that joint adoption is already legal for same-sex couples in both Nevada and Hawaii, but as the scholarly community points out, it disregards the consensus of scientific research endorsing same-sex parenting.

In a brief filed by the American Psychological Association, National Association of Social Workers, American Association for Marriage and Family Therapy, American Psychoanalytic Association, and Hawaii Psychological Association, the scholars outline three factors that research has determined leads to good parenting:

  • The quality of the relationships between parent and child.
  • The quality of the relationships among adults in the child’s life (such as between the parents).
  • Available economic resources to support the child’s development (e.g., safer neighborhoods, more nutritious food, etc.).

The groups point out that these factors are not impacted by sexual orientation, and thus there is no reason to conclude same-sex parents would be inferior in any way.

In a complementary brief, the American Sociological Association (ASA) expanded upon what research says specifically about the outcomes for children of same-sex parents:

Click here to read the entire article.

Gay Couples, Choosing to Say ‘I Don’t’

October 25, 2013
New York Times

When the Supreme Court struck down the Defense of Marriage Act in June, Brian Blatz, 47, marched into the kitchen of Fiddleheads, the restaurant in Jamesburg, N.J., that he owns with Dan Davis, 58.

“DOMA is dead,” Mr. Blatz said, before the pair turned their attention to opening the restaurant for lunch. And last month, when a judge in New Jersey ruled that same-sex marriage should be legalized, their reaction was similarly muted.

“I said ‘wow’ and he said ‘yea,’ ” Mr. Blatz said. “And then we went right back to work.”

It’s not that Mr. Blatz and Mr. Davis are not in love. They have been together for 18 years and swapped rings in a ceremony in their backyard nine years ago. But the couple sees little point in marrying.

“We are in all senses married, and it isn’t going to change anything in terms of how we feel about each other,” Mr. Blatz said.

They are not unique. Now that same-sex couples in 14 states have all the rights and responsibilities of straight married couples, gay couples are rushing to the altar, right? Not exactly. Plenty of gay couples do not want to marry, and their reasons are as complex — and personal — as any decision to wed.

For some, marriage is an outdated institution, one that forces same-sex couples into the mainstream. For others, marriage imposes financial burdens and legal entanglements. Still others see marriage not as a fairy tale but as a potentially painful chapter that ends in divorce. And then there are those for whom marriage goes against their beliefs, religious or otherwise.

“It’s a very, very archaic model,” said Sean Fader, 34, an artist in New York who is single and asked to be identified as queer. “It’s this oppressive Christian model that says ‘Pick a person that’s going to be everything to you, they have to be perfect, then get a house, and have kids, and then you’ll be happy and whole.’ ”

“There are many heterosexuals who feel the same way,” he added. After all, not all heterosexual couples choose to marry. But same-sex couples do seem more inclined to be marriage holdouts. According to a Pew Research poll released in June, 60 percent of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender adults are married or said they wanted to marry, compared with 76 percent of the general public.

Some of the opposition among gay men and lesbians is rooted in a feminist critique of marriage, which sees it not as a freedom to be gained but as an institution that has historically oppressed women.

That feminist strain held firm in the earlier years of the gay rights movement. The late Paula L. Ettelbrick, a leading lesbian and gay rights figure, was among the vocal opponents of same-sex marriage, and held a more expansive view of relationships and family.

Click here to read the entire article.

Steve Lonegan, New Jersey Senate Candidate: Gay Parenting Is ‘Biological Phenomenon’

ontopmag.com, October 11, 2013

Steve Lonegan, the Republican candidate from New Jersey vying for the U.S. Senate, has described gay parenting as a “biological phenomenon.”

Appearing opposite his Democratic rival, Newark Mayor Cory Booker, during a televised debate on Wednesday, Lonegan was asked his position on marriage for gay and lesbian couples.

“Marriage between a man and a woman is the greatest institution ever devised by the minds of man to raise a child,” Lonegan answered.  “And that’s what this is about.  It’s about children.  And I’m going to support traditional marriage.”

“However, I do believe in liberty and the rights of adults to live their lives the way they choose.  Consequentially, I do not want other groups forcing their new value system down the throats of my Catholic Church, evangelical church, protestant churches, and overriding our institutional religious beliefs.”

New York Lesbian Co-Parent Custody Claim Precluded under 12-Year-Old Decision

artleonardobservations.com, October 8, 2013

The evil that courts do lives on…  On October 4, 2013, the New York Law Journal published Rockland County Family Court Referee Dean Richardson-Mendelson’s opinion in Matter of A.F. v. K.H., V-00918-13, rejecting all attempts by a lesbian co-parent to obtain judicial relief against her former partner’s action of excluding her from contact with the children they had been raising together.  The principal barrier to her case is the N.Y. Court of Appeal’s old decision, Alison D. v. Virginia M., 77 N.Y.2d 651 (1991), which held in similar circumstances that the co-parent was, despite her relationship parental relationship with a child since the child’s birth, a “legal stranger” who did not have standing under New York law to obtain a declaration of her parental rights, custody or visitation, and that the circumstances that the women had agreed to raise a child together did not amount to “special circumstances” required under New York law to enable a legally-unrelated third party to seek custody of a child.

In A.F. v. K.H., the parents had registered as domestic partners, but the court mentions this only in passing and does not specify the jurisdiction.  A.F. and K.H. were living together as a couple when they decided to have children, using anonymous donor insemination for K.H. to conceive two children.  They lived together raising the children until they separated in July 2011, but continued to live on different floors in the same house, facilitating continued contact between A.F. and the children, who lived with K.H.  In February 2012 K.H. moved out with the children to her mother’s house in New Jersey, but then relocated back to another town in New York State in August 2012.  A.F. continued to have visitation two days a week and alternate weekends, until a promotion at her job made weekday visitation impossible.

A.F. contributed to the support of the children financially.  In May 2012, K.H. had filed a petition in Rockland Family Court seeking formal child support from A.G.  In support of this claim, her petition was full of factual allegations seeking to persuade the court that A.F. was a parent of the children who should be held to this responsibility.  But in August, she withdrew the petition, and the Support Magistrate marked it as withdrawn.

Click here to read the entire article.

Lesbian Moms Again in Forefront of New Marriage Cases

At Mombian.com – July 11, 2013

The past couple of weeks have seen a  new round of progress in several marriage-equality lawsuits—and just as with the cases that brought down the Defense of Marriage Act and California’s Proposition 8 (as I wrote a few weeks ago), lesbian moms are again in the forefront, along with a number of gay dads. Two of the cases (in Michigan and North Carolina) even began as challenges to state bans on second-parent adoptions, and later evolved into marriage-ban challenges as well.

Let’s take things alphabetically:

  • In Illinois, Lambda Legal and the ACLU have asked for speedy summary judgment in two marriage-equality cases. More than half the the plaintiff couples in Lambda Legal’s Darby v. Orr lawsuit are parents, including moms LaKeesha Harris and Janean Watkins, Michelle Chappell and Michelle Franke, Theresa Volpe and Mercedes Santos, Angelica Lopez and Claudia Mercado, Daphne Scott-Henderson and Ryan Cannon, Patricia Garcia and Julie Barton, and Anne Dickey and Laura Hartman, as well as dads Daryl Rizzo and Jaime Garcia, Robert Hickok and Brian Fletcher, and Brandon and Kevin Bowersox-Johnson.
  • In the ACLU’s Illinois Lazaro v. Orr lawsuit, again more than half the the plaintiff couples are parents, including moms Tanya Lazaro and Elizabeth “Liz” Matos, Lynn Sprout and Kathie Spegal, Michelle Mascaro and Corynne Romine, and Kirsten and Tanya Lyonsford, as well as dads Carlos Briones and Richard Rykhus.

– See more at: http://www.mombian.com/2013/07/11/lesbian-moms-again-in-forefront-in-new-round-of-marriage-cases/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Mombian+%28Mombian%29#sthash.cUOuKlfe.dpuf

Click here to read the entire article.

Living in a Post-DOMA World

NCLR.org, June 26, 2013

The Supreme Court victory on June 26, 2013  in United States v. Windsor striking down the discriminatory federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) affirms that all loving and committed couples who are married deserve equal legal respect and treatment from the federal government. The demise of DOMA marks a turning point in how the United States government treats the relationships of married same-sex couples for federal programs that are linked to being married. At the same time, a turning point is part of a longer journey, not the end of the road. There is much work ahead before same-sex couples living across the nation can enjoy all the same protections as their different-sex counterparts.

LGBT organizations have developed fact sheets on what the decision means for you.

Click here to read the fact sheets.