Unwanted Bonds

I think I’d best start this post with a series of forceful disclaimers.  I’m going to comment on the story that has riveted many people the last few days, that of Jaycee Dugard, who was kidnapped and held more or less captive for 18 years by Phillip Garrido. 

So here are my disclaimers.   Given the little I know about what happened, I think it was truly horrific.  I have no sympathy for Garrido.  I do not think his actions become defensible because of the passage for time.   Additionally, from what I’ve read, I think Dugard coped with an impossible situation incredibly well.  She was 11 when she was kidnapped.  She was forcibly raped and bore two children in this fashion.  She lived in a primitive jail for most of the time. 

Now all that said, I’m struck by one paragraph in the NYT story I linked to:

Polyamory and the Number of Parents

Dedicated readers will notice that I’ve removed my “summer time” post.  Home again.   But all the attendant travel and such has really disrupted my posting.  Sorry about that.  I’m going to try to pick it up again starting now.

There was recently (last week maybe?)an article in Newsweek on polyamory.  Perhaps for the mainstream media, polypeople are the new lesbians and gay men–the new cutting-edge-of-the-family.   Anyway, in the past I’ve discussed the number of parents problem a couple of times.   Polyamorous families or clusters obviously present at least the potential for this problem.  

Typically the law prefers to find two and only two parents, and in the historical ideal, that would be one female (the mother) and one male (the father).   It’s pretty clear that in the social world, the two parent model, while common, is hardly the only configuration.   

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.”  

Nevada Domestic Partnership Law and Parentage

A couple of days ago Nevada enacted domestic partnership legislation.   (The legislature over-rode the governor’s veto.)   The legislation grants registered domestic partners (how may be of the same sex or of different sexes, which is unusual) most of the rights granted to married couples.

I just wanted to take a moment to note that this has direct implications for establishing parenthood in Nevada, though perhaps they aren’t obvious at first blush.

Suppose I had a child and I got married.   Then I wanted my spouse to adopt the child.   The spouse would not go through a full-blown adoption proceeding.  In most states there’s some abbreviated proceeding for instances like this, sometimes called a “step-parent adoption.”  It’s generally cheaper and faster and less intrusive.

Choosing Mothers, II

As promised, I’m picking up on yesterday’s post.  You should probably have a look at that first.

First let me explain why that Michigan case reminded me of the West Virigina lesbian foster mothers case I had just written about before that.   I think Lisa in yesterday’s case is really a parent of the child.  Similarly I think Kutil and Hess are really the parents of BGC.   In saying that these three women are really parents I mean that if you look at how the children’s worlds operate, these women are in parental roles.   They are doing the actual work of parenting.

But at the same time, in the eyes of the law, these three women are not legal parents.  And if you are not a legal parent to a child, you are nothing much at all, at least as far as the law is concerned.   And, as I’ve explained before, we have a very strong preference in favor of legal parents over anyone else at all.  

Choosing Mothers?

There’s a recent case out of Michigan which has made me think about choosing mothers.  It also ties back a bit to the last post about the lesbian foster mothers in WV.   (I’ll come to that in a bit, I hope.)

I’m actually only going to use the Michigan case as a jumping off point, so I’ll start with a little story here.   It’s similar to, indeed suggested by, the Michigan case, but I’m not trying to summarize those facts completely or accurately.

Amy gave birth to a child.   She asserted that Tim was the father and at some point it was established that he indeed was.   (No need for the moment to worry about why or how.)    Amy and Tim were not together, however, and so they shared custody of the child.

Tim met and married Lisa.   That means, of course, that when the child was with Tim she (the child) was also with Lisa.

Over time, Amy became a less and less satisfactory parent.  (Remember, I’m not just summarizing the facts here.)   Eventually Tim gained sole physical custody of the child.   That means the child lived all the time with Tim and Lisa.   At the same time, Amy’s rights were never terminated.   She remains a (really the) legal mother.

Marriage and Parenthood

I suppose the last post naturally leads me to consider marriage and parenthood more generally.   Or at least in more detail.

The linkages between marriage and parenthood (and parenting) are intricate.  But for starters, I want to separate out two different kinds of linkages.

Sometimes being married (or being not-married) has an effect on your legal status as a parent.   So, for example, the husband of a woman who gives birth to a child is presumed to be the father.  This presumption can trump a genetic test which shows DNA from someone else.

For those who are curious, in MA and CA, the wife of a woman who gives birth is similarly presumed to be a parent.  But here there is a MAJOR CAVEAT:  Since many other states will not recognize the CA or MA marriage of two women, the parenthood of the spouse may not be recognized in those other states.   Thus, the spouse needs to adopt her own child in order to effectively protect her rights.  (And in case you think this makes the presumption gender neutral, you might need to think again.   Neither the wife nor the husband of a man who provides the genetic material to create a child is deemed to be a parent by virtue of their marriage to the DNA provider.)  

A Parting Thought on the Kentucky Second-Parent Adoption Case

I’ve been considering this Kentucky case for some days now.   In the last post I used it as a jumping off point for some more general thoughts about adoption.   I’m going to continue in that vein here.

One thing is both obvious and striking about the Kentucky case–if the parties (known as S and T) had been married, then the outcome would be different.   Step-parent adoptions are routinely available.    The question I want to examine is why marriage should make such a big difference.

First off, note that marriage often makes a big difference in ability to adopt generally, not just in step-parent adoptions either.   In some places single people and unmarried couples are barred from adoption.   (Among other things, this can pull lesbian and gay parenting into the same-sex marriage debate and vice versa.  That’s worthy of a much more extended discussion, but note that right now Arkansas voters are considering a ballot measure to prohibit unmarried couples from adopting or becoming foster parents.  This would necessarily have the effect of prohibiting lesbian and gay couples from becoming adoptive or foster parents because, of course, Arkansas will not recognize them as a married couple, even if they travel to MA or CA and get married.   While there is reason to think this is the main point of the initiative, it is couched in terms of married/unmarried, presumably because that is more politically appealing.)   

Kentucky Second-Parent Adoptions As A Taking-Off Point

For a couple of entries now I’ve been talking about a recent Kentucky Court of Appeals decision.   Though I think it is worth going back to read the other posts (I would, wouldn’t I?), what I want to do now is use the case as a taking-off point to consider two general questions that I came to think about along the way.

First I’ve been thinking about adoption.  Adoption is a formal process that creates a legally-recognized parent/child relationship.  One of the more basic characteristics of adoption, at least as it is generally practiced in the US (and I suspect much more broadly) is that it requires termination of the existing legal relationship with the pre-adoption parent(s).  In other words the new (adoptive) parents take the place of the preceding (natural?) parents.

I want to actually stop and think about this for a moment.  Why does it have to be that way?   I can easily see why in some instances you would want it that way, but should it generally be assumed that this is the way you should want it?   This is an important point because step-parent and second-parent adoptions (when the latter are allowed) are significant exceptions to the general rule.  Because they are exceptions, they need to be carefully justified.

News In Brief–No Second Parent Adoptions in Kentucky

I’m interrupting my thread about lesbian and gay parentage (broadly considered) to discuss a recent case that just so happens to deal with an issue of lesbian and gay parentage.  The case is from the Kentucky Court of Appeals.  You can read a news story version of it or you can have the whole full-text opinion.

S and T were a lesbian couple.  They decided to have a child.   S got pregnant via insemination, using an unknown donor chosen by T.

When the child was born, S was automatically considered to be a legal parent of the child.   That’s because she gave birth to the child and she was genetically related to it.   T was not a legal parent.

If S and T had been married, T would have been a parent– That’s parenthood by marriage.   This works for different-sex married couples and for same-sex couples in CA and MA.  Some places extend the same recognition to same-sex domestic partners or those in a civil union.  But not Kentucky.   Definitely not Kentucky.