Gay Dads, Surrogacy and Portable Parenthood

Here’s a new case from Virginia that turned up on Professor Arthur Leonard’s very fine blog.   The facts are rather complicated and the case presents a variety of interesting question. 

Roberto-Luis Copeland and Philip Spivey are a gay couple.   They wanted to become parents.  In 2003 in Minnesota (where I assume they lived) they entered into an agreement with Tanya Prashad.   It’s described in the opinion as a surrogacy agreement. 

Prashad was inseminated with sperm from both men.   She became pregnant and ACC was born in Minnesota on August 10, 2004.   Now I don’t know offhand what the law about surrogacy in Minnesota is.   But I believe, from the events that followed, that Prashad was and remains the child’s mother.  

Figuring out the father at the time of birth is a different matter. 

The Irresponsible Parent

(This is a continuation of the discussion begun in my last post.  You might want to go and read that first.)

In my last post I argued that it’s misleading to criticize some people’s choices to become parents as selfish, because all people’s choices to become parents are equally selfish.    However, I didn’t mean to suggest that no criticism of individual decision-making was possible.  I suggested that the better question was whether the decision to become a parent was responsible.    

Before I go further down that road, a bit of discussion is necessary.    There’s at least an argument that the decision to become a parent is personal and hence, shielded from public examination of the sort I am suggesting.  

To the extent this is true, it seems to me it ought to be equally true for all people.  Thus, it is as true for a single woman as it is for a married couple. 

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.

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.   

News From Australia: How Many Parents and Why?

I’ve been mulling over a recent news story from Australia that someone sent to me.  It’s a rather complicated tale.   

 Ms. Fabian and Ms. Halifax (they only give last names in the story) were in a relationship for about seven years.  During that time, each of them gave birth to a child.   Ms. Halifax used sperm from a family friend, identified as  Mr. Dalton.  That child is now seven.  Ms. Fabian used sperm from an anonymous donor.   That child, a girl, is the subject of the litigation.  She is now three. 

The two women separated when the daughter was 20 months old.  At the time they lived in Queensland, but at least Ms. Fabian, and perhaps both, were from New South Wales.    Ms. Fabian now wants to return to New South Wales.

Her request to move is being opposed not only by her former partner, Ms.  Halifax, but also by a gay male couple.   According to the newspaper story, this couple “cannot be named,” but one of them is apparently the donor for the other child, which would mean he is Mr. Dalton.   An Australian court has determined that she should not move while the requests of the various parties are considered.     

For the Good of the Children?

It’s hard not to pause to comment on this story, which is currently on the AP wire.   Keith Bardwell, a justice of the peace in Tangipahoa Parrish in Louisiana, won’t perform marriages for interracial couples.    His rationale?    

“I don’t do interracial marriages because I don’t want to put children in a situation they didn’t bring on themselves,” Bardwell said. “In my heart, I feel the children will later suffer.”

Now I admit to being shocked at his candor and at his views.   And I am sure he is being rightly pilloried in many places on the web.   His unwillingness to marry interracial couples is outrageous. 

That said, I’d like to pursue a different train of thought.  I want to try to consider the general argument that some people shouldn’t have children because it will be bad for those yet to be created kids if they do.   

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.  

Restricting Access to ART: One View on Ethics

There’s been a lot of discussion on my blog about donor insemination, and particularly the use of anonymous donors.   I’m ready to take this is a broader direction.  I’ll start with this short post. 

 This morning I came across this document, which provides ethical guidance to ART (that’s assisted reproductive technology)   professionals.    (DI is is one facet of ART.)   It was developed by the ASRM(American Society for Reproductive Medicine).  While it doesn’t address the issue of anonymous donors, it is focused on the use of ART by people who will frequently be using anonymous donors.    

It’s not particularly new (2006) but it is interesting to me the way the discussion is organized.  As the title makes clear, this paper is addressed to the use of ART by lesbian, gay or unmarried people.   The question posed is whether it is permissible to discriminate in the provision of ART–that is, to provide it to (heterosexual) married couples, but not to unmarried couples or single people.  

Controlling Mothers, Lesbian or Otherwise

I’m going to leave my last topic, though only for the time being, to pick up some things that piled up over the week.   I’ll start with a new case involving a lesbian mother from Tennessee. 

As is so often, you can read about the case on Professor Arthur Leonard’s blog.   The facts are fairly simple.   Angel Chandler and Joseph Barker had been married.  They had two children who are now 16 and 14.  An affair by Joseph Barker lead to a 1998 divorce.  By agreement, Angel Chandler was designated as the primary custodial parent for one child (a daughter) and Joseph Barker was designated as primary custodial parent for the other (a son). 

About a year after the divorce Angel Chandler began a relationship with a woman.  They now live together.   In addition, Joseph Barker married the woman he had had an affair with.   Over the years there were various modifications in the custody arrangement, generally by agreement of the parties.  In 2007, however, the parties ended up in court again.