Court rules against lesbian 'co-parent' in custody fight

[theHandpuppet]

Michele Hobbs really wanted to be a mom.

She planned for the pregnancy, swore to do what was best for the child – born in 2005 – cared for her family and adored being called “momma” by the daughter.

But, the Ohio Supreme Court ruled Tuesday, because Hobbs’ lesbian partner gave birth to the child, Hobbs isn’t a parent and doesn’t have parental rights to the girl.

Kelly Mullen, the child’s biological parent, is her only mother, the court ruled....

MORE at http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20110712/NEWS010702/307120054/

[FreeState]

1. Disgusting n/t

[w8liftinglady]

2. that is so sad for the parent and the child. I feel for both of them....

[ProgressiveProfessor]

3. Different decisions have been reached on this in different states

Eventually this will have to get settled at a national level via the courts or legislature

[Unvanguard]

8. That's doubtful. There is a great deal of family law diversity across states.

And not just with respect to same-sex couples raising children either. It would probably be unconstitutional on Tenth Amendment grounds for Congress to intervene, and, unlike with respect to same-sex marriage, there's no straightforward constitutional argument to get state law where it should be.

Getting statutes or case law protecting the parentage rights of non-biological parents is a state-by-state fight, and probably will always be.

[dddem]

4. Correct me if i'm wrong,

But the link says there was no legal binding contract. Should the non-biological mom have legally adopted the child? I'm thinking this has less to do with the fact that this was a same-sex couple and more to do with Ms. Haobbs not having a legal right to custody. I'm certainly not minimizing the fact that Ms. Hobbs should not be separated from her child (in every other sense of the word), but, sadly, using children to get back at your partner is not exclusive to same-sex partners.

[dsc]

5. Ohio bans such adoptions

only one parent of a particular sex at one time.

[dddem]

6. I wasn't aware of that - the article doesn't mention it. Thanks for pointing it out.

From the article - I don't get this part -
"Mullen signed documents – health-care power of attorney, general durable power of attorney and will where Mullen nominated Hobbs as the child’s guardian – that noted she wanted Hobbs to have parental rights “in every way” over the child.

But each time Mullen had the opportunity to memorialize those wishes in a binding, written contract, she refused."

And I'm bothered by this part -
"While this specific case involved lesbians and was closely watched by gay rights advocates, it also was closely monitored by others who saw it potential impact on parent rights – or the lack of parental rights – of grandparents, step-parents or others raising a child who biologically isn’t theirs."

Sometimes I think we adults are bigger babies when we don't get our way than the children we are supposed to be looking out for.

[dsc]

10. what I find particularly appalling about these decisions is the contrast

with the ones where money is involved. If she had been paying support we would be told incessantly that the interest of the child dictates that the money continue to flow.

[Unvanguard]

7. Adoption wasn't an option, but there could have been a formal agreement to share custody.

There wasn't; there were, however, other documents attesting to the couple's intention to co-parent. That wasn't enough for the district court, however, and both the appellate court and now the Supreme Court deferred to its reading of the evidence.

[Unvanguard]

9. This ruling is bad, but not catastrophic.

It's a bad outcome in this case, and generally a bad outcome for Ohio law, insofar as it functions to raise the bar for what counts as a agreement to share custody. But it's also a ruling that's at least somewhat fact-bound; the majority relies a lot on the refusal of the biological parent to consent to a formal written shared-custody agreement. The majority reaffirms an earlier Ohio Supreme Court ruling establishing that biological parents can form enforceable shared-custody agreements with their partners; it just defers to the judgment of the lower court that the facts in this particular case aren't sufficient to establish such an agreement.

The full opinion is here.