A Few Further Thoughts About Charisma v. Kristina

A few days ago I wrote about a not-terribly recent CA case, Charisma v. Kristina.   (You might want to read that discussion first.)  There’s one aspect of the case I’ve been thinking about:  Charisma won in large part because she convinced the court that she should be treated just as a similarly situated man would be.    

There’s an old and well-established legal doctrine, incorporated into the law of many states, that provides one avenue to parentage for unmarried men.   Essentially, if a man holds a child out as his own (sometimes for a particular period of time) he will be presumed to be a parent of the child.    I’ve written about this a bit in the past. 

California does have a version of holding out–where a man “receives” a child into his home and holds the child out as his own child, he is presumed to be the father of the child.  (Interestingly, he is presumed to be the natural father of the child.   “Natural father” frequently means genetically related father,  but as the court notes, it does not always mean that and in this case it has a broader meaning.)

Quick Update: CA Lesbian Mother Case Settles

A while back I wrote about a case called Smith v. Quale.   The post garnered a lot of comments.  (In fact, it’s listed as the top post right now, even though it’s some weeks old.)   Since there seemed to be that much interest, I figured I’d offer this brief and rather enigmatic update:  The case has settled.   No details are available save that both women are recognized as legal parents of the twins.

CA Lesbian Mother Decision Stands–Supreme Court Denies Review

Long ago I meant to write about a CA appellate court decision in Charisma R. v. Kristina S.   (A word about that link–I don’t think it will take you to the actual opinion, but rather to the page that allows you to enter into the appellate court opinion portion of the website.  You might need the cite (96 Cal. Rptr. 3d 26) to get to the actual opinion.)   This was back in June, 2009.  

One thing and another intervened and I don’t think I ever wrote about the case.  The CA Supreme Court affirmed without opinion, so that wasn’t much to write about, either.  But earlier this week the US Supreme Court declined to review the case, which brought it (briefly) back into the news.   On the “better late than never” theory, I figured I’d use that as an excuse to write, particularly since a recent post on a CA lesbian mother case has been a lively spot for discussion here. 

Charisma and Kristina began dating in 1997, moved in together in 1998 and entered into a domestic partnership in January, 2002.   Just before that, they decided they wanted to have children.   After some effort, Kristina became pregnant and a daughter, Amalia, was born in April 2003.  

So Maybe Some People Should Not Be Parents?

I’ve got a variety of short little things I’ve been meaning to note.  (It always seems like I’m slightly behind these days.)  At the risk of eliciting groans of despair, I wanted to briefly note this item.   Once again Nadya Suleman, mother of octuplets, is in the news.   It just never ends, does it? 

I’ve written about her story any number of times in the past.   It’s hard to imagine anyone making a better case for the regulation of ART.    It does seem that perhaps she should not be in charge of eight children, or fourteen children or maybe even a single child. 

But the main reason she’d be subject to regulation is that she used ART and there is something seemingly reasonable about regulating access to medical procedures.   But it seems to me she’d be just as good (or just as bad) a parent if she had conceived via intercourse. 

The Interests of Children

I was reading through the comments to earlier posts and, on more than one occasion, people either invoked or asked about the interests of children.   I’m sure I’ve discussed this before (though I cannot locate the post just now…so much for tags?) but it’s good to revisit it from time to time. 

I try to keep this blog mostly focused on how we determine who are the legal parents of a child.   It’s obvious that the well-being of the child is implicated in this decision.   But where exactly do we/should we take it into account?

Perhaps the most surprising thing is that generally speaking, in any given case with any given child, we do not ask what is in the child’s best interest when we are trying to figure out who the child’s  parents are.    To see why, you might think about what could happen if we did consider the child’s best interest at this point.