Summer Time

With the solstice at hand, it is now summer.  I’ll be travelling a bit and so posts may be less frequent.   I will try for several times a week, but make no promises.   You might want to grab the RSS feed so that you know when I post.  I’ll be back more regularly in a bit.  Enjoy!

Whales and the Nature of Parenthood

For quite a while now I’ve been mulling over a more thorough discussion of the role of nature in arguments about parenthood.   I’ve touched on this topic before–here, for example.   (I’m going to make a tag for “nature” and I’ll try to go back and tag some of the older entries, but that is for the future.)  “Nature” is frequently in discussions about who is or is not, or who should be and who should not be a parent. 

You can start with the phrase “natural parent.”   I think to most people the woman who gives birth to a child she is genetically related to is a natural parent of the child, while the natural father would be the man who provided the sperm.  (Unless of course he was a sperm donor, in which case you are in the realm of ART, where the “A” used to stand for “artificial” as distinguished from “natural.”)   I think the idea here is really to distinguish a natural parent from an adoptive parent, who is a parent by action of law rather than by action of nature.    The parental status of the former is simply in the nature of things–it owes nothing to culture or civilization or law.   (Law does, however, generally confirm the parental status of natural parents.)     

Lesbian Mother/Grandparent Visitation, III: Ruminations

Over the long weekend, while I wasn’t posting, I was thinking about the Indiana case I’ve been writing about.  (There are two earlier posts–here and here, which you might want to look at to get up to speed.)   (I’ve also been irresistably drawn to consider Michael Jackson’s children, which I’ll get to very shortly.)  

There’s a factor that complicates my response to the Indiana case, one that I’d like to try and separate out.  The dynamic that lead to the grandparent/parent breakdown, which in turn lead the grandparents to sue for visitation, was driven by the grandparents response to their daughter’s lesbianism.   It’s explicit in the opinion that the grandparents intolerant condemnation of BLH’s relationship with KW and their refusal to accept KW as a member of their family lead to the litigation. 

Lesbian Mother/Grandparent Visitation, II

In my last post, I discussed a recent Indiana case at some length, outlining both basic facts and law.  You’ll probably be better off reading that post first.    Here I want to talk about what interests me about the opinion. 

This is one of those cases that illustrates exactly how important it is to be recognized in law as a parent to the child.   The mother prevails not because the court investigates which household would be the best place for the child to live and decides it is her household, but rather because she is a parent and so her decision about what is best is entitled to respect.     

The inquiry about which household is better—which generally lies at the core of a “best interests of the child” analysis—leaves the presiding judge an enormous amount of discretion to determine what she/he thinks is better.   This can be particularly treacherous a parent who does not conform to traditional model–a single mother, a lesbian mother, or a single lesbian mother, as BLH (the mother here) once was.  

Lesbian Mother and Grandparent Visitation in Indiana: Who is In and Who is Out?

A new case from Indiana  raises a host of issues about de facto parentage, parental rights, and the passage of time.   Some of these connect up to issues in the de facto case from MissouriI blogged about.   Others are reminiscent of questions I raised in the post about  David Goldman and passage of time. 

It takes a little while even to recite the facts, which means this discussion may need to span several days.   But as is always the case in family law, the facts are critical.  I’ve linked to the full opinion above and you can also read the excellent summary from Professor Art Leonard’s blog.   

BLH was a single mother.   She gave birth to CLH in 2001.  CLH was apparently conceived through intercourse and so has a father, TY.   TY has not provided child support and has never been substantially involved with the child.   Nonetheless, since his rights have not been terminated, he remains a parent of the child, albeit one always in the far distance. 

BLH’s pregnancy was complicated.  She lived with her parents, GLH and BJH, throughout it and for the five years after CLH was born. 

Marriage and Parenthood

There’s a post by Mombian up at the Washington Post this morning that’s made me think again about the connections drawn between parenthood and marriage.   It’s worth a read and worth some thought.  

The post is essentially an argument about the importance of marriage rights for children of lesbian and gay couples.   It’s an equation that troubles me a little for a couple of reasons.   I’ve written frequently about the ways in which the question of access to marriage for same-sex couples has become interwoven with the well-being of children.   It is still, however, momentarily startling to me to see the power people grant to law in their lives. 

I don’t mean to sound like a total skeptic about the importance of law.   It should be clear, for example, that I believe legal recognition of a person’s status as a parent is absolutely critical.   But once a child has two legally recognized parents, why is it so important that the state also validate the relationship between the parents?  

Egg Buying, II

The story I blogged about a week-and-a-half ago has finally reached the NY Times.   (This is the one about NY state now paying women to donate eggs for stem cell research.) 

The story prompted me to return to this thread for a moment.  As the NY Times makes clear, for some the concern about buying the eggs is that women will give their eggs for other than altruistic reasons. 

This suggests two distinctions are being drawn–first, between altruistic and non-altruistic behavior, and second, between donating eggs for IVF as opposed to donating eggs for research.  It’s apparently okay to donate eggs for IVF no matter what your motivation but, at least for some people, it’s only okay to donate eggs for research for altruistic reasons.  

Missouri Lesbian Parents, II: Other Perspectives

This is picking up on yesterday’s post, so you might wish to start there.   The case I discussed there was from Missouri and concerned a lesbian couple who started a family, each gave birth to a child using a common donor, and then split up.  As sometimes seems to happen, one woman (Michelle White) claimed the right to completely exclude the other (Leslea White) from the life of the child she had given birth to.  (The child is identified as “CEW.”)   In the opinion just released, the Missouri appellate court acceded to this request.  

I imagine this was the aim that Michelle wished to accomplish.   But there are several other things that follow from this.  It seems to me nearly inevitable that Michelle White has also withdrawn entirely from the life of the child that Leslea gave birth to.   (This child is identified as “ZAW.”)  Although Leslea is willing to have Michelle continue a relationship with ZAW, it’s pretty hard to see how Michelle could do that consistent with her contention that Leslea can have no relationship with CEW.   From both a practical and a legal standpoint, the two positions are nearly impossible to reconcile.  

Lesbian Mothers in Missouri–Siblings Sundered

There’s a new case out of Missouri that falls into the regrettable category of intra-lesbian disputes about parental status.   To recap, these are cases where lesbians who have been raising a child split up and argue not simply about who should have how much time with the child (that’s a simple custody case) but about whether or not both women are actually parents of the child.   

Typically one woman has given birth, and so she is clearly a parent.  The question focuses on the parental status of her former partner.  If that woman is not a parent, then in all likelihood she will have no further contact with the child.   That’s the power of parental rights–You get to decide who the child spends time with.    If she is a parent, then she is entitled to have that custody fight I mentioned above.  

(These problems can be entirely avoided when the second woman obtains legal recognition of her status as a parent in advance of any trouble.  The most common way to do this is through a second-parent adoption, which you can also find discussed frequently here.)      

A Few Further Thoughts on Father’s Day

As I read through the New York Times this past Sunday I was impressed with the pervasiveness of the Father’s Day theme. Virtually every section of the paper  I picked up seemed to have at least one Father’s Day themed article—sports, business, style, and op-ed.  The Style section alone had two Father’s Day articles, plus a column reviewing a couple of books around single-motherhood thrown in for good measure.  

The pieces that struck me most were a pair of essays in the News of the Week by John S. and Jason Burnett, who are father and son.   They were separated for 27 years—from the time Jason was 10 to the time he was 37.   Though the essays are a bit sketchy on historical detail, it’s clear that John Burnet left his family.   He says, “I bolted down to the Brooklyn docks and signed on a merchant ship.”  

On Father’s Day

On Mother’s Day I wrote about gendered parenthood and it seems only fair to do the same on Father’s Day.   But before I do that, I’ll start with a nod towards all the families with kids and no fathers.  

I’m thinking here of single-mother households and lesbian mother households (and yes, they overlap.)   Just as Mother’s Day creates a minor crises for motherless families, so Father’s Day creates a crises for fatherless ones. 

Schools have become more accommodating though, offering the opportunity to make a Father’s Day project for a grandfather, an uncle, or any other significant male figure.   The key, of course, is that the recipient must be a man.