Michael Jackson’s Children, II

I gather from recent news stories that the disupte over the custody of Michael Jackson’s children has been resolved.   Debbie Rowe, mother of the two older children, will not contest the efforts of Katherine Jackson, who is Michael Jackson’s mother, to secure custody of all three children.  (As I wrote before, it is not clear to me who, if anyone, is a parent of the youngest child.)   

It’s worth noting that while the parties have reached an agreement, it is still the role of a judge to assess the appropriateness of the agreed upon solution.   This is because the state has an independent interest in the well-being of children.  They are not simply property, which can be apportioned as private parties see fit.

To me the most noteworthy feature of the agreement is that Katherine Jackson is 79 while the children are 12, 11 and 7.   Of cousre, given the financial circumstances of the Jackson family, much of the physical labor or child-rearing could readily be farmed out to others.   But still, the grandmother’s age gives me pause.

Effort to Undo Maine Adoption Fails

There’s an interesting and really somewhat unusual case out of Maine this past week.   You can read either the press account or the actual opinion, but I’ll also summarize it here.   I actually think this ties in rather nicely with some of the recent posts I’ve done on adoption.  

Olive Watson and Patricia Spado were a lesbian couple.   Watson is the daughter of Thomas Watson, Jr, a former president of IBM.   As such, she was part of a very wealthy family. 

Watson and Spado were together for 12 years or so.  During that time, Spado quit her job and moved in with Watson.   While they primarily lived in New York, they had a vacation home in Maine that the visited each year.  

Spado was financially dependant on Watson and understandably Watson wanted to protect Spado in the event something were to happen to her.  For a heterosexual couple the obvious move would have been to get married.   But of course,  that wasn’t possible for Spado and Watson.  So Watson decided to adopt Spado. 

Updated: West Virginia Case in NYT Magazine

In early June I wrote about a West Virginia case involving a lesbian couple (Kathryn Kutil and Cheryl Hess) and questions of foster care/adoption.   The case is featured in today’s NYT magazine.    The story includes a good deal of background information on the case and is surely worth a read.

[I posted that short intro yesterday because it is all I had time to post yesterday.  I wanted to add a couple of thoughts today.]  

This story and the extensive opinion in the Louisiana case from the day before are forceful reminders of the overwhelming complexity of real-life families.   As I think back to the summaries of facts I’ve done for so many cases and to the cases I drew the summaries from, I can see how much of that complexity gets glossed over most of the time.  

A Recent Louisiana Case and the Power of Adoption

There’s a case–not such a recent case, but one just came to light thanks to Professor Art Leonard’s watchful eyes–out of Louisiana that confirms an important point about the portability of adoption.    Professor Leonard’s post includes a good summary of the facts.  You can also read the full opinion.   It’s quite long.  

After being together as a couple for 17 years, June Mire and Angela Palazzolo decided to have a child.   When Palazzolo did not become pregnant via assisted insemination, Mire did.   She gave birth to a daughter, IP,  in January 1997.

While the couple had met in Louisiana and the eventual case is a Louisiana case, at the time of the insemination and birth, the couple lived in California.   Consistent with California law, Palazzolo completed a second-parent adoption in 1997.

DC Lesbian Mother Law Enacted

A new law has taken effect in our nation’s capitol–one which establishes  lesbian motherhood in a way analogous to that in the recent Oregon case I’ve discussedat some length.   The law is noteworthy as it is the first of it’s kind.  It’s the result of long labor by a wide-range of people and organizations, among them the inimitable Professor Nancy Polikoff and the National Center for Lesbian Rights.  Unsurprisingly, you can find a useful discussion of the new law on Professor Polikoff’s blog.  

The new law accomplishes by legislation what the Oregon case did by judicial reasoning:   The law provides that when a person (note gender neutrality as this is critical) consents to the insemination of a woman, with the intention of being a parent to the resulting child, the person is a legal parent of that child.   Put more concretely, when a lesbian couple plans to have a child using assisted insemination, the child that results will be recognized in law as the child of both women.  

The Implications of the Oregon Lesbian Mother Decision

Last week I posted  a couple of times about a recent Oregon case that opens some new avenues for lesbian mothers seeking legal recognition of their parental status.   While you might wish to go back and look at those posts, the idea, in a nutshell, is this:   If two women agree to engage in assisted insemination with the idea that they will raise a child together, then when they do that and the child is born, they are both legal parents of that child. 

There are two different ways in which you could reach this result.  One is that employed by the Oregon court:  A heterosexual married couple would be entitled to this treatment.  There is no basis for treating an unmarried lesbian couple differently in this regard, and therefore the lesbian couple is entitled to the same legal recognition. 

The thing about this rationale is that it starts from an already existing law that treats a heterosexual couple in a particular way.   That’s all well and good–it is really a fine way for a court to support it’s result.   But I want to consider the second way to justify the result, which is to say that this is the way the law should be for all people, be they married or unmarried, heterosexual or not. 

Artificial Gametes, Laboratory Sperm And the Future of Parenthood

A story in today’s Daily Telegraph goes into some detail about scientific work towards creating artificial gametes.   Understanding the processes by which gametes (that’s egg and sperm cells) are produced has clear implications for infertility research.   But as the article describes, at the outer edge this research also suggests the possibility that egg and sperm cells could be produced by either men or women and that these cells could be produced from ordinary cells in our body.

The Telegraph chooses an eye-catching headline for the story:   “Does lab sperm mean the end of fathers?”   (It’s actually not a particularly well chosen headline, since the article suggests that it would be easier for the cells of men to be altered to serve as eggs than for the cells of women to be altered to serve as sperm.)  The answer–also in the headline is “Not in my lifetime.”

Michael Jackson’s Children and Their Parents

A little while back I allowed as how I would eventually get around to saying something about Michael Jackson and his children.   It’s a quiet Saturday, so this is it.

I have not kept up on the entire Michael Jackson saga, but here are the things I think I know.  (I trust someone will correct me if I have major points wrong.)   Jackson died, obviously.  At least one will has surfaced that leaves the bulk of his estate to his children.  

 Jackson was apparently legally the parent of three children:  12 year old Michael Jackson Jr, 11 year old Paris Michael Katherine Jackson, and 7 year old Prince Michael Jackson, II.   While no one seems to have raised any questions about this, I’m a bit curious about how he got to been recognized as such in all three cases.   

I’ve read several places (sorry not to have a link) that Jackson was not genetically related to any of the children.   

Oregon Lesbian Mothers, II: The Portability Problem

Earlier today (yes, it looks like it might be two posts in one day) I wrote about a very interesting new Oregon case.   You would do best to read that entry, which includes a discussion of the case.   But the essence of it is that Sondra Shineovich was determined to be the legal parent of two children because she agreed to her partner’s conception of the children via donor insemination.  (There is Oregon law that states a married man would be the legal parent of children born to his wife under similar circumstances.)

There are several reasons why the ratification of this path to parenthood is an important development for lesbian mothers.  It is relatively automatic.   By undertaking the joint project of conception/birth of a child, both women aquire legal rights as parents.  No adoption is required and no one needs to wait and establish the track-record of a de facto parent.   (It’s worth noting that neither of these approaches would have helped Shineovich here as the women had separated by the birth of the second child.)  

Legal Parentage for Lesbian Mothers in Oregon

Here’s a new Oregon case that’s quite interesting.   There’s an excellent discussion of it at Professor Nancy Polikoff’s blog.   Some of what I say will doubtless be repetitive, but it’s an important enough development to warrant emphasis, I think.  

The case begins in that ordinary way–two women (a couple) who have had children together and then break up.   Sondra Shineovich and Sarah Kemp began living together in 1997.   In 2003 they decided to have children and Kemp became pregnant via assisted insemination.   A son, P, was born in 2004.  (As it happened the son was born in the brief period of time that Multnomah County was issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples and Shineovich and Kemp married before the birth of P.  However, these marriages were subsequently voided and the marriage is, I think, of no legal consequence here.)   Shineovich established a parent/child relationship with P and Shineovich and Kemp operated as co-parents.  

In order to have a second child, Kemp again became pregnant through assisted insemination in 2006.   The parties separated during her pregnancy.   A, a daughter, was born in March 2007.     Kemp denied Shineovich contact with the children after Kempa nd Shineovich broke up.     Shineovich had not adopted either child. 

In many jurisdictions–perhaps in nearly all jurisdictions–this story would now take a darker turn.