NY Family Court – “children’s best interests are served through second parent adoptions”

“So long as uncertainty persists in this country and abroad about the status of children conceived by same-sex couples using assisted reproduction, children’s best interests are served through second parent adoptions confirming what already should be crystal clear everywhere: the legal parental status of the second non-biological parent.”

(New York, October 12, 2016) — A New York family court issued a decision last week affirming that married lesbian couples continue to be entitled to second parent adoptions to give added security to their children, who already are entitled to have both spouses recognized as their parents. The court’s decision came after Lambda Legal and its co-counsel submitted a legal memo last month on behalf of four couples, all from Brooklyn, who had sought adoptions to safeguard their children. The Court’s decision also confirms that children born to married same-sex spouses in the state have two legal parents, with or without adoptions and regardless of genetics.gay fathers

“The Court ruling is very clear that children born to married same-sex couples already have two legal parents,” said Susan Sommer, National Director of Constitutional Litigation at Lambda Legal. “But so long as uncertainty persists in this country and abroad about the status of children conceived by same-sex couples using assisted reproduction, children’s best interests are served through second parent adoptions confirming what already should be crystal clear everywhere: the legal parental status of the second non-biological parent. Children have a right to both of their parents, and taking a ‘belt and suspenders’ approach is the best way to secure that right. As this decision confirms, the courts have the authority and responsibility to issue second parent adoptions for children in these families.”

Lambda Legal filed the memo on behalf of four married lesbian couples who had petitioned the family court for second parent adoptions of children they conceived using assisted reproductive technology. Each of these couples planned for and intend to raise their children together, even though only one of the two parents is genetically related to her child. As the legal parents of the children, they are entitled to all the rights and responsibilities that come with being a parent in New York and anywhere they may travel with their children. But because the laws that define parenthood vary from state to state, these couples sought the added security of adoption decrees to confirm the parent-child bond for the non-biological parent.

The Supreme Court’s ruling in Obergefell affirmed that same-sex couples and their children across the country are entitled to all the protections that come through marriage, but some states, like North Carolina<http://www.lambdalegal.org/in-court/cases/nc_weiss-v-braer> and South Carolina, where Lambda Legal is litigating, have resisted giving full recognition to those rights. And disparities persist around the nation in laws about assisted reproduction, making parents wise to seek the extra security of second parent adoptions.

The Court’s decision confirmed that married same-sex spouses using assisted reproduction are both the legal parents of their children, with or without adoptions, and that genetics and adoption aren’t the determinants of parentage. The Court also acknowledged the lingering uncertainties and resistance to parenting rights for same-sex couples in the U.S. and abroad, and thus the importance of access to second parent adoptions for these families. Finally, the decision confirmed the courts’ ongoing authority to grant adoptions to spouses who already are the legal parents of their children under New York’s marital presumption of parentage.

Lambda Legal was joined on the memorandum of law by the following co-counsel, who represented the families in their adoption proceedings:  Teresa D. Calabrese; Rebecca L. Mendel of Rosin Steinhagen Mendel; Melissa B. Brisman and Nancy M. Hartzband of Melissa B. Brisman, Esq., LLC; and Andy Izenson of Diana Adams Law & Mediation, PLLC.

Read the memo. http://www.lambdalegal.org/in-court/legal-docs/ny_20161012_memorandum-law-judicial-authority

Read the decision. http://www.lambdalegal.org/in-court/legal-docs/ny_20161012_matter-of-l

in Known Donor / Legal / Recently Added / Second Parent Adoption / Step Parent Adoption / Surrogacy  by Anthony Brown 2 comments

New York Family Law, Matter of Brooke S.B.

Late August 2016 marked a turning point for New York family law and how it defines parents, particularly lesbian parents.

What the court decided – Up until this decision, many lesbian parents who had not adopted the biological children or their partners or spouses were considered legal strangers to the children that many of them had raised since birth.  Under previous New York family law, these non-biological and non-adoptive parents could not seek the legal system’s assistance in gaining custody, or even visitation, to the children who they helped to raise.

All that changed last month with a court case known as In the Matter of Brooke S.B. v. Elizabeth A.  C.C.  In this landmark decision, the court overturned previous New York precedent that had torn families apart for decades and ruled that non-biological and non-adoptive parents did have standing to sue for custody and visitation in the New York family court system.  This brings New York family law in line with many other states which recognize “de facto” parents for the purpose of custody and visitation and prioritizes the best interests of the child in making these critical decisions.remarkable parenting

What this decision does not address? – The court was careful to base its decision on the specific facts of this case, which included one very important element: the fact that the couple agreed in advance to the conception of the child.  What this means is that if a lesbian couple has children but the non-biological or non-adoptive parent entered the picture after the conception of the child, then she would not fall under the definition of a “de facto” parent as stated in this case.  Also, if the non-biological, non-adoptive parent did not consent to the conception of the child by clear and convincing evidence, she would be forestalled from seeking custody or visitation.

It is also critical to note that the court did not explicitly state that the non-biological, non-adoption mother was a legal parent of a child born to her spouse or partner for all purposes, just that she could seek custody and visitation if she had consented to the conception.  This case also did not explicitly address the notion of the marital presumption of parentage, which a mid-level appellate court has held not to apply to same-sex couples.  This concept holds that the spouse of a married woman is automatically considered the legal parent of any child she gives birth to.

Does this mean I do not have to adopt my partner or spouse’s child? – I do not believe that the court meant for this decision to be a substitute for second or step adoption.  Adoption is the one clear pathway to legal parentage and parentage includes much more that custody and visitation.  Adoption also ensures that a parent’s relationship to their child would be respected across the country and around the world.

For instance, if you are the non-biological, non-adoptive parent and you have a better health care plan at work, this decision would not mandate that an employer must put the child on your health insurance. Second or step parent adoption would, however, ensure that that the child would be protected in this situation.

Brooke S.B. was also silent on whether a legal relationship between a non-biological or non-adoptive mother would be recognized for the purposes of estate administration. This means if a legal parent dies without a Will, their children automatically share in that parent’s estate if they are married, or inherit the estate completely if the decedent spouse is not married.  Finally, the legal and emotional statement of securing your family through adoption resonates beyond just the family unit.  It establishes your family in the community, in your child’s educational institutions and, most importantly, in the eyes of the children with whom you are creating a legal family.

Brooke S.B. also fails to address how gay men can protect their families through surrogacy.  Adoption is still the best way in New York to create legal families established through surrogacy.

Brooke S.B. will undoubtedly protect many families from the horror of being torn apart because one parent was not recognized as a real parent. For that, New York family laws will be better and stronger for all families.  But this decision is not all-encompassing and when it comes to the protection of your family, the establishment of comprehensive legal parentage by a non-biological parent is the ultimate goal.  To accomplish that, a second or step-parent adoption is essential.

For more information about New York family law and the ramifications of the Brooke S.B. decision, contact Anthony Brown at Anthony@timeforfamilies.com or visit www.timeforfamilies.com today.

in Assisted Reproductive Technology / Featured Articles / Known Donor / Legal / Second Parent Adoption / Step Parent Adoption  by Anthony Brown 2 comments

These Two Dads Almost Lost Their Son In A Bizarre Surrogacy Case

Jay Timmons and Rick Olson thought they’d have no legal trouble using a surrogate to birth their son. Then a rogue judge in Wisconsin pulled them into an 11-month legal battle.

Jay Timmons and Rick Olson, a married gay couple from Virginia, didn’t think they’d have any trouble becoming the legal parents of the baby boy their surrogate, a Wisconsin woman, delivered for them last year.

They had gotten the frozen embryo that became their son as a gift from straight friends whose in vitro fertilization created more embryos than they could use. They had chosen a Wisconsin surrogate specifically because the state’s Supreme Court had upheld surrogacy, and other same-sex couples had had smooth sailing there. And by just about any measure, the two intended fathers were prime parent material: They both had good jobs, they had been together for 25 years, and they were already raising two daughters from previous surrogacies.Timmons

But their careful plans went awry the month before their son, Jacob, was born, when their effort to be named his legal parents landed before a conservative judge who saw surrogacy as a form of human trafficking. Over the next 11 months, the couple’s bizarre legal battle cost more than $400,000 and kept them in constant terror of losing their son.

“We didn’t have one night’s peace,’’ Timmons, 54, a conservative Christian and president of the National Association of Manufacturers, told BuzzFeed News. “We’d wake up absolutely panicked, around 2 in the morning, and talk about the fact that we didn’t know what was going to happen.”

The couple took out second and third mortgages to cover the legal fees, and Olson, 49, quit his job as a federal lobbyist for Capital One to manage the proceedings.

Over the last couple of years, a handful of high-profile surrogacy lawsuits have cropped up in U.S. courts. In California, a surrogate named Melissa Cook refused a man’s wishes to abort one of the triplets she was carrying for him. And in a Pennsylvania, The View co-host Sherri Shepherd tried, unsuccessfully, to pull out of a contract with a pregnant surrogate after splitting up with her husband.

But the Wisconsin case is likely unprecedented, legal experts say, in that the surrogate, her husband, and the intended parents were all happy with their arrangement. Only the judge was not.

The case was a “judicial hijacking,” Melissa Brisman, a surrogacy lawyer in New Jersey, told BuzzFeed News. “We’re at a time when a lot of people are still very committed to the idea that family values means straight married couples who have sex are the only ones who should have babies.”

In June the couple won the case, thanks in large part to the judge’s abrupt resignation. Although the proceedings had played out in closed court, once it was over, supporters of Timmons and Olson provided copies of court transcripts, briefs, and filings to BuzzFeed News. And although the case is certainly an anomaly among the thousands of surrogacy arrangements made in the US every year, it underscores how, in certain areas of the country, surrogacy has become a flashpoint for cultural debates about same-sex marriage, reproductive rights, and the booming fertility industry.

by Tamar Lewin, buzzfeed.com

Click here to read the entire article.

in In the News / Legal / Second Parent Adoption / Step Parent Adoption / Surrogacy  by Anthony Brown 1 comments

Adoption equality in Victoria Australia starts today

LGBTI couples in Victoria can now adopt under new laws that come into effect from today.

Changes to the Adoption Amendment (Adoption by Same-Sex Couples) Act 2015 gives same-sex couples the same rights in adoption law as heterosexual couples, and gay and lesbian individuals.

“Today is a historic day in Victoria – we’re another step closer to equality for thousands of same-sex families,” said Equality Minister Martin Foley.gay parents adoption

“This law brings much needed certainty for many children and their parents who currently live in a legal haze in terms of their relationships with the people they love.”

The government said the increase in families applying to adopt will mean that there will be more opportunities for children to be matched with the best possible family.

Felicity Marlowe, co-convenor of the Rainbow Families Council, said the new laws will ensure children of LGBTI couples will now have the rights and legal protections they deserve.

“We wholeheartedly thank the Andrews Government for their commitment to equality for rainbow families. Just like us, the Premier and his Government understand that it is love that makes a family,” Marlowe said.

Anna Viola is part of a same-sex family with a daughter in a step-parent family. The law means she and her partner can now officially adopt her daughter.

“Being able to adopt means that my partner and child will be able to have their relationship bound by law and all the protections and rights that we couldn’t take for granted before,” Viola said.

“It’s a momentous step for us emotionally too – what adoption symbolises as well as what it means on paper.”

But religious exemptions will remain in place, a clause equality groups say it still discriminatory.

“We are very disappointed that faith-based services remain able to discriminate against same sex couples who apply to adopt,” said Sean Mulcahy, Co-Convenor of the Victorian Gay & Lesbian Rights Lobby.

“We firmly believe that children’s rights should never be trumped by the religious beliefs of a state-funded service provider,

“This reform marks the end to the last Victorian law to discriminate against same-sex couples. We will not stop until all LGBTI Victorians are treated equally in both law and policies.”

by Reg Domino, gaynewsnetwork.com/au

Click here to read the entire article.

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

New York state court rules non-biological, non-adoptive parents can seek custody, visitation if couple breaks up

ALBANY — In a major ruling for same-sex and other non-traditional couples, the state’s top court Tuesday ruled that non-biological or adoptive parents can seek visitation and custody if a couple breaks up.

Until now, the courts have held that non-biological and non-adoptive parents have no legal standing when it comes to parenting.

But the Court of Appeals changed that in a landmark ruling on Tuesday morning, overturning its own 1991 decision known as Alison D. v. Virginia M. that restricted the definition of a parent to someone with biological or adoptive connections.

lesbian family law

In the new decision, the court noted the 1991 ruling came 20 years before New York allowed gay couples to wed.

“We agree that, in light of more recently delineated legal principles, the definition of ‘parent’ established by this Court 25 years ago in Alison D. has become unworkable when applied to increasingly varied familial relationships,” Judge Sheila Abdus-Salaam wrote in the decision.

“Accordingly, today, we overrule Alison D. and hold that where a partner shows by clear and convincing evidence that the parties agreed to conceive a child and to raise the child together, the non-biological, non-adoptive partner has standing to seek visitation and custody.”

While acknowledging it’s rare for the court to change one of its previous decisions, the judges found that the 1991 Court of Appeals ruling limiting the legal definition of parents to those with a biological or adoptive relationship “has inflicted disproportionate hardship on the growing number of nontraditional families across our State.”

The decision does not guarantee that someone with no biological or adoptive link to a child can win visitation. That ultimately will be decided on a case-by-case basis by the courts based on what is determined to be in the best interest of the child.

by Kenneth Lovett, New York Daily News, August 30, 2016

Click here to read the entire article,.

in Legal / Recently Added / Second Parent Adoption / Step Parent Adoption  by Anthony Brown 2 comments

Considering Known Sperm Donors

Lesbian couples are choosing known sperm donors in increasing numbers for a variety of very important reasons. Your choice now can make a big difference in your child’s life.

Known sperm donors are a much more viable option for lesbian couples today than they have ever been.  What greater decision can there be than the biological parent of your child? Choosing an anonymous sperm donor used to be the norm.  There are many reasons why known sperm donors are becoming the preference for lesbian couples and this article explores some of the most important ones.  But first, make sure you know the law.

One of the most cited reasons for choosing known sperm donors is to have a greater insight into the biology of your child. Having a known sperm donor’s medical history can be critical for mothers who have medical or genetic issues that they must consider before having a child.  An anonymous sperm donor file will provide some medical information, but a known donor can share his family medical history, which may be crucial for the health of your child.remarkable parenting

While medical considerations are one of the top reasons for having a known donor, knowing the emotional and social character of the donor is also an often overlooked consideration in many people’s path to parenthood.  No anonymous donor profile can show the complete picture of the person who may be the biological father of your child.

Legal considerations are also important reasons to choose between anonymous donors and known sperm donors. Anonymous donors surrender their parental rights to any children born with their genetic material upon deposit to a sperm bank or fertility clinic.  When you choose an anonymous donor, they may offer the option of allowing the child to contact them at age 18, but there is no question as to their lack of parental rights to that child.

Known sperm donors in many states, New York included, must surrender their parental rights to a child born with their genetic material after the birth of that child.  And if the mother is a single parent by choice, the known donor in many states may not surrender their parental rights at all.

In New York, as in most states, the best interest of a child is considered when allowing a genetic parent surrender their parental rights. If a known donor is surrendering his parental rights to the spouse or partner of the mother, then the court will authorize that surrender.  If, however, there is no other parent who will be assuming parental rights, the known donor cannot surrender their parental rights and will be able to sue for custody and visitation.  The mother will also be able to sue that known donor for child support.  This is the most important reason why single mothers by choice should use an anonymous donor.

One reason why lesbian moms are choosing known sperm donors is for the emotional health of their children later in life. Many studies show that the more a child knows about their biological background, be they adopted, a child through surrogacy or through known or anonymous sperm donation, the better adjusted they are as adults.  These same studies also show high satisfaction levels in the mothers who have chosen known sperm donors.

One other consideration in choosing a known sperm donor is where they live. If you envision a known donor as a parental figure in your child’s life with a more active role, the donor must be geographically able to fill that role.

Finally, many mothers choose between known and anonymous donors because of the degree of control they wish to have over their family formation. Choosing a known donor can be tricky and many mothers prefer to maintain the kind of parental control over their family that can only be experienced with an anonymous donor.

Whether you are considering known sperm donors to help you create your family or whether anonymous donors are right for you, the most important part of this decision is that you and your spouse or partner are comfortable with it and on the same page. And please make sure you know the law! For more information about known sperm donation and the legalities surrounding our families, contact Anthony@timeforfamilies.com or visit www.timeforfamilies.com today.

in Anonymous/Known Donation / Featured Articles / Known Donor / Legal / Parenting / Second Parent Adoption / Step Parent Adoption  by Anthony Brown 1 comments

Same-Sex Parents Still Face Obstacles Under New York’s Standing Rules

Prior to the tragic events of Sunday, June 13, 2016 in Orlando, Florida, one might have felt optimistic about the evolving societal acceptance of and respect for same-sex parents and the corresponding progressive state of family and matrimonial law.

We shared in the sense of uplift from the recent United States Supreme Court decisions in United States v. Windsor and, especially, in Obergefell. v. Hodges, decided a little over one year ago on June 26, 2015. Obergefell dealt in sweeping fashion with discriminatory and unconstitutional objections to marriage for same-sex couples. As set forth in Justice Anthony Kennedy’s dramatic and moving language, the need for same-sex parents, and the children of those relationships, to be granted the social dignity and the many societal benefits that go along with stepping into the light of mainstream acceptance by virtue of a nationwide right to marry is required by the equal protection mandates of the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.gay parents adoption

In concluding that its “analysis compels the conclusion that same-sex couples may exercise the right to marry,” 576 U.S. 12 (2015), the Supreme Court in Obergefell detailed not just the importance of being able to enter the institution of marriage, but the need for same-sex couples to do so on fully equal footing as other couples, through the front door, and stressed in its exhaustive analysis that the focus should not be on how these couples love, but that they love and wish for that love to be reflected in their social standing.

Choices about marriage shape an individual’s destiny. As the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts has explained, because “it fulfils yearnings for security, safe haven, and connection that express our common humanity, civil marriage is an esteemed institution, and the decision whether and whom to marry is among life’s momentous acts of self-definition. Goodridge, 440 Mass., at 322, 798 N.E. 2d at 955″ cited at 576 U.S. 13 (2015).

As this court held in Lawrence, same sex couples have the same right as opposite-sex couples to enjoy intimate association. Lawrence invalidated laws that made same-sex intimacy a criminal act. And it acknowledged that “[w]hen sexuality finds overt expression in intimate conduct with another person, the conduct can be but one element in a personal bond that is more enduring. 539 U.S. at 567. But while Lawrence confirmed a dimension of freedom that allows individuals to engage in intimate association without criminal liability, it does not follow that freedom stops there. Outlaw to outcast may be a step forward, but it does not achieve the full promise of liberty.

576 U.S. at 14.

Further, Justice Kennedy singled out the importance of the right to marry to the children of these relationships.

Excluding same sex couples from marriage thus conflicts with a central premise of the right to marry. Without the recognition, stability, and predictability marriage offers, their children suffer the stigma of knowing their families to be somehow lesser. They also suffer the significant costs of being raised by unmarried parents, relegated through no fault of their own to a more difficult and uncertain family life. The marriage laws at issue here thus harm and humiliate the children of same-sex couples.

576 at U.S. 15.

In New York, the passage of the Marriage Equality Act in 2011 directed that all of the laws, benefits and obligations bestowed by the Domestic Relations Law with regard to marriage be read and implemented without regard to sexual orientation, and, if necessary to do that, in a gender neutral way.

Section 10-a. Parties to a marriage.

1. A marriage that is otherwise valid shall be valid regardless of whether the parties to the marriage are of the same or different sex.

2. No government treatment or legal status, effect, right, benefit, privilege, protection or responsibility relating to marriage, whether deriving from statute, administrative or court rule, public policy, common law or any other source of law, shall differ based on the parties to the marriage being or having been of the same sex rather than a different sex. When necessary to implement the rights and responsibilities of spouses under the law, all gender specific language or terms shall be construed in a gender-neutral manner in all such sources of law.

Yet, despite the passage of the Marriage Equality Act and the newfound nationwide ability to marry, the courts in New York are contending with circumstances in which same-sex families were formed and children brought into them by using strategies that pre-date the ability of same-sex couples to marry. This approach has potentially devastating consequences when those families and their respective rights are addressed in divorce and family court proceedings. These problems arise from, and the courts continue to wrestle with the vestiges of, a rule established by the New York Court of Appeals a generation ago in Alison D. v. Virginia M., 77 N.Y.2d 651 (1991), which set the stage for categorical discrimination against same-sex parents based upon their lack of a biological or adoptive relationship to a child.

The impact of Alison D. was eroded somewhat by the Court of Appeals decision in Debra H. v. Janice R., 14 N.Y.3d 576 (2010), which, through application of comity, recognized parental standing of a non-biological non-adoptive parent in 2010 based upon Vermont’s judicially created rules granting standing based upon the couple’s civil union in Vermont. However, without the right to marry or enter into a civil union in New York at the time, children of unmarried same-sex couples in New York were not afforded the same benefits and protections.

This discrimination is not so easily remedied by the directives of the Marriage Equality Act because many of the parents involved in these situation were not or are not married at the time that their children are born and because the conceptual framework for the denial of standing is based upon a biologically based terminology that is found throughout the family and matrimonial law. This terminology reflects a fixation with the biomechanics of conception, a fixation which runs deeper than mere gender assumptions. Instead of a focus on the “best interest” of children, which is the bedrock determination of all other matters related to their custody and welfare in New York matrimonial and family law, the New York Supreme, Family and Surrogate’s Courts continue to trip over the threshold issues of “standing” when it comes to same-sex parents because of references to “birth” parents or the heterosexual and gender assumptions implied by the use of the word “paternity.” For example, a “paternity” test directed in Family Court proceeding continues to only apply to men and only to establish the biological relationship of men to children obviously born to women. Perforce, this excludes same-sex couples.

By Meg Canby and Caroline Krauss Browne

law.com

Click here to read the entire article.

in Legal / Parenting / Recently Added / Second Parent Adoption / Step Parent Adoption  by Anthony Brown 2 comments

In win for gay couples, Maryland high court recognizes de facto parents rights

Maryland’s highest court has ruled that non-biological parents, de facto parents,  who live with and help raise children also have parental rights, overturning a 2008 decision that gay and lesbian advocates considered devastating to same-sex couples.

In a unanimous ruling issued Thursday, the Maryland Court of Appeals ruled that family-court judges can consider whether persons are de facto parents in custody and visitation cases. Advocates say Maryland was one of a few states that considered such parents strangers in the eyes of the law.

De facto parents can include the partner of a lesbian who undergoes artificial insemination, a gay man whose partner adopts a child from a country that does not allow same-sex couples to jointly adopt, or a straight man who raises a child with a woman for years without formal adoption.gay parents adoption

Until the 2008 court decision, such people generally had the ability to maintain some parental rights in Maryland even when their relationships with their partners crumbled.

Then the Court of Appeals ruled against a Baltimore County woman who sought custody or visitation rights with a girl who had been adopted by her ex-partner. The court said “third party” parents should not be treated differently from other third parties seeking custody. That meant they would need to show exceptional circumstances or that the legal parent was unfit in order to be awarded time with children they had helped raise.

This week’s ruling concerned a different case and reversed the precedent set by the court in 2008. Denying rights to third-party parents “is ‘clearly wrong’ and has been undermined by the passage of time,” Judge Sally Adkins wrote in the decision.

LGBT advocates hailed the ruling for correcting what they saw as a continuing injustice against the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community, even after voters legalized same-sex marriage in 2012.

“Now Maryland joins the majority of other states in taking those parents and children out of limbo and putting them in solid legal footing,” said Jer Welter, a lawyer with FreeState Justice who represented plaintiff Michael Conover in the case ruled on this week.

Mr. Conover is a transgender man who had married a woman before undergoing his gender transition. Their wedding took place in the District, which legalized same-sex marriage before Maryland did. Courts treated him and his ex-wife as a same-sex couple for the purpose of the dispute.

Brittany Conover gave birth in 2010 to a child, Jaxon, who was fathered by a sperm donor selected with the input of Mr. Conover, then known as Michelle, according to court records. The couple separated the next year and divorced in 2013.

Ms. Conover stopped allowing her spouse to visit in 2012. She argued in a later custody battle that her former partner never adopted Jaxon and was not listed as a parent on the child’s birth certificate.

Lower courts agreed that Mr. Conover lacked parental rights. The Court of Appeals ruling returns the case to a Washington County judge with the concept of a de facto parent restored in law.

“I am elated that the state’s highest court has ruled that people like me should have our relationships with our children legally protected,” Mr. Conover said in a statement.

R. Martin Palmer Jr., an attorney for Ms. Conover, said the court usurped the role of lawmakers in defining a parent and may have created a situation in which stepfathers can take control of children from capable mothers.

By Fenit Nirappil / The Washington Post, July 9, 2016

Click here to read the entire article.

in In the News / Legal / Second Parent Adoption / Step Parent Adoption  by Anthony Brown 1 comments

Same-Sex Couples Can Now Adopt In Every State

Yesterday, a federal judge ruled that Mississippi’s ban on same-sex couples adopting children is unconstitutional, making gay adoption legal in all 50 states.

U.S. District Judge Daniel Jordan issued a preliminary injunction against the ban, citing the Supreme Court’s decision legalizing same-sex marriage nationwide last summer. The injunction blocks Mississippi from enforcing its 16-year-old anti-gay adoption law.

The Supreme Court ruling “foreclosed litigation over laws interfering with the right to marry and rights and responsibilities intertwined with marriage,” Jordan wrote. “It also seems highly unlikely that the same court that held a state cannot ban gay marriage because it would deny benefits — expressly including the right to adopt — would then conclude that married gay couples can be denied that very same benefit.”

Mississippi HRC state director Rob Hill said this of the ruling:

Friday, July 1, 2016 via The Vital Voice

Click here to read the entire article.

in Adoption / Legal / Recently Added / Second Parent Adoption / Step Parent Adoption  by Anthony Brown 0 comments

Gay couple’s baby recognized as German in landmark ruling

Gay couples in Germany have limited rights when it comes to starting a family. But what if a child is born in a country with full same-sex marriage rights? One of Germany’s highest courts has given an answer.

 

The Federal Court of Justice on Wednesday granted German citizenship to a South African child born to lesbian mothers in a major development for LGBT family rights.

The court case centred around a child born in 2010 in South Africa to a lesbian couple – the biological mother was South African while the other mother was German.

lesbian family law

The parents were legally married in South Africa and therefore were automatically recognized equally there as the child’s parents.

But when the mothers went to Germany to register their partnership, authorities in Berlin refused to offer the child German citizenship because the biological mother was foreign.

Children born to at least one German national outside the country are normally considered German citizens within heterosexual pairs.

But unlike heterosexual couples in Germany, same-sex partners cannot marry and therefore any child had or adopted by a pair is not automatically considered the child of both.

The only way that same-sex couples can start a family together is through something called successive adoption – generally one partner adopting the biological child of the other.

The German mother had not done this in her home country.

June 15, 2016

Click here to read the entire article.

in In the News / International / Second Parent Adoption / Step Parent Adoption  by Anthony Brown 1 comments