A quick run through some news on lesbian and gay parents

Again, my apologies for the lengthy silence.  First I was travelling and in my travels, I managed to contract the H1N1 flu.  I’m prepared to affirm that it is a nasty bug.   I am not yet out of quarantine, but at least I am feeling human again.  

A couple of recent items on lesbian and gay parents.  (I actually think there were more than two, but I’ve lost track.) 

First, here’s a current item from France.   France permits single people to adopt, including single lesbians and gay men, does not permit lesbian and gay couples to adopt.   The rationale?   The absence of a different sex role model in a lesbian or gay couple.  

Men as Parents and the Power of Public Appreciation

There was a story in yesterday’s New York Times that I thought worth a little discussion.  The story was in the science section and is about fathers and parenthood.  (I am not sure the NYT headline really suits the article, but that’s really beside the point.)   It made me think about some of the recent discussion here. 

One thing the article notes is detrimental effect of social messaging that excludes men/fathers.   These paragraphs caught my attention: 

Uninvolved fathers have long been accused of lacking motivation. But research shows that many societal obstacles conspire against them. Even as more fathers are changing diapers, dropping the children off at school and coaching soccer, they are often pushed aside in ways large and small.

Adoptive Parents and the Genetic Link

There’s been ongoing discussion here  (that link is just one example) about the importance of a genetic connection between parent and child.  As I have made clear, I am not persuaded that a person who can claim a genetic link with a child should therefore been recognized as a legal parent.   Hence, I think a man who provides sperm to a woman need not be the father of that child.   Others have strongly disagreed.  We’ve had long discussions about it. 

Arguably, this isn’t simply a matter of opinion.  This is a question where there might be useful evidence to consider and occasional reference has been made to one or another study of some of the questions raised.     I read a paper the other day which makes an interesting contribution here.   It’s from the American Sociological Review, February 2007 and is by Laura Hamilton, Simon Cheng Brian Powell.  (I’ve linked you to the table of contents the article is not on-line.  If anyone wants a copy, you can e-mail me.)  

The authors wanted to examine the importance of biological ties for parental investment.  

What Does It Mean That A Child is “Yours?”: Thinking About ART Mistakes

Here’s a thought-provoking piece from The Guardian, UK.   It ties back to some of my earlier thoughts about ART mistakes. (The most recent string was occasioned by the “wrong embryo” case featured on the Today show not so long ago.)  

As the article notes, while uncertainty about paternity has been around forever, uncertainty about maternity is a new problem.   Time was a woman gave birth and we knew she was the mother.   Now?  She may not be legally recognized as the mother of the child (because in a jurisdiction that enforces surrogacy agreements a woman who gives birth is not necessarily a mother).   And she may be legally recognized, but she may not be genetically related to the child.   In this brave new world, women as well as men may now need to ask ”Is this child mine?”   

This question–is the child mine-is a fascinating one.   To say that this thing or that thing is mine is to claim possession.   Children, of course, are not possessions, nor can they be possessed.   As it is used in this article (and in the Michael Jackson’s Billie Jean) the question is really one about genetic lineage–was my genetic material used to create this child

News from the UK: Gay Fathers Reflect

I seem to have allowed myself a de facto sabbatical from my blog last week.   My apologies to you all, but I suppose I needed the time away.   Anyway, I’ll gear myself back up now. 

Here’s a story about gay fathers in the UK.  It isn’t really a story, though. It’s six gay men/couples talking about their experiences adopting in the UK.   Not the sort of thing you see in the mainstream press all that often, really.  

I’ve been thinking a good deal about gay men and parenthood recently, though I haven’t had occasion to write about it for a while.   One so often lumps together “gay and lesbian” parents.  Yet parenthood is deeply gendered (surely I’ve said this thirty times?) and so lumping lesbian and gay parents together misses as much as it captures.   

The Hierarchy of Parenthood, II

Yesterday I began to consider whether there needs to be some consistent hierarchy among the various tests for who gets to be a legal parent.   It will be a good deal easier for you to follow this discussion of you read yesterday’s post first.    While some of what I have to say here today is repetitive, it’s a bit more organized and also expanded.  

Yesterday I laid out six possible tests for legal parentage, each of which is used at least some of the time in some places.   I’ve been thinking about the thought-process that has to accompany trying to develop an answer to the “do we need a hierarchy” question.  

Perhaps the first thing to do is to examine each test and consider the arguments for an against it.  I think for the most part I’ve done this in various posts over the last nearly-two years, so for the moment I’ll skip it.  (If you are interested, do feel free to poke around in the archives.  You can try using the relevant tags, which should be helpful.)  

Is There A Hierarchy of Parenthood?

My main purpose in starting and maintaining this blog is to consider the question of who the law should recognize as a parent.   I take individual cases and news events as they come and try to use them to illustrate various points–how the law is, how it might be, where it is good, where it is bad, and so on.   But from time to time I think it is useful to step back and think more broadly.   I’ll take this as one of those times. 

There are a number of different tests you might use to determine who the parents of a child are.  Each has strengths and weaknesses, which are discussed elsewhere on the blog.   Part of the challenge is that the question arises in so many different situations.   ART in particular gives us a whole range of new complications, but there are plenty even without that.  

Possible tests include :

–Genetics–that is, the people whose egg/sperm are used;

–Intent–the people who intend to be the parents of the child, at some identified critical point (presumably before the child is concieved, certianly before the child is born);

–Function–the people who act as the parent of the child for a some specfied period of time (could be fixed, like two years, or could be defined as something like “a substantial period given the age of the child.) 

Appellate Court Hears Argument in Louisiana Birth Certificate Case

A while back I commented on a Louisiana case in which two adoptive gay parents sought a new birth certificate for their son.   I’ll do a brief summary of the case, but I just wanted to note that the case was argued today. (I just updated to add a later version of the story.)  I cannot find much detail about the argument, but it does remind me that it is out there.   It’s worth paying attention to because it might tell us something about the portability of parenthood or perhaps legal significance of birth certificates.    

So here’s the summary:  Oren Adar and Mickey Ray Smith both adopted the child, I think in New York, which permits gay couples to jointly adopt.    The child was born in Louisiana, which does not permit two unmarried people to adopt.    Since the child was born in Louisiana, the child has a Louisiana birth certificate.   Adar and Smith sought to have a new birth certificate issues–one that reflected their status as parents.  

Short Follow Up on Montana Case

Yesterday I commented on a new decision of the Montana Supreme Court.   Here’s a bit of the local press coverage.  It makes me want to add several more quick observations. 

Hulstad and Maniaci were in a lesbian relationship.   While this is evident from the majority’s opinion, it is of no legal importance.   The rationale does not hinge at all on issues of sexuality.  That means the opinion applies to many people who are not lesbians as well.  

While this isn’t unusual (many of the de facto parent opinions share this feature) it’s also a little curious.  For the press, the fact that this is a same-sex couple is news-worthy–you can tell that from the article.   It’s also important to the lesbian community and to the losing side and to the concurrence.  

Montana Recognizes Lesbian Mother

Back in May I commented on a case (Kulstad v. Maniaci) that had been argued before the Montana Supreme Court.   It’s now been decided.   A good decision for lesbian families. 

I ran through the facts in my last post, but I’ll summarize them here, too.    Michelle Kulstad and Barbara Maniaci were a lesbian couple.  In February, 2001, the opportunity to adopt a child, LM,  arose.  Kulstad and Maniaci agreed they would parent the child together and participated in a home study in which it was clear that they planned to co-parent.  But as is the case in many states, only one of them could adopt the child and they decided that Maniaci would adopt. 

In 2003 Maniaci wanted to adopt a second child.  Kulstad was initially resistant, but it was clear that if the child were adopted, both women would co-parent.  In the end, Maniaci adopted AM.