Can Lesbian 'Social Moms' Be Legally Equated, in Certain Circumstances, with Fathers?
February 20th, 2007 by Glenn Sacks, MA for Fathers & FamiliesBackground: Over the past few months I have written a column and several blog posts on the issue of the rights of lesbian "social mothers"--women who agreed to employ a sperm donor so that they could have children with their lesbian partners, who are the biological mothers.
I do believe that children fare best when they have both a mom and a dad, and that fathers offer much to children that mothers don't provide. However, this is not possible in lesbian couples. When two lesbians agree to have a child together, and when the child has bonded with both his or her biological mother and his or her social mother, I believe that the relationship between the child and the social mother should be protected. I also believe that the biological mother has a responsibility to her children and to her former partner to hold up her end of the deal with the partner with whom she created the child, and that courts should hold her to her commitment.
Conservative columnist Jennifer Roback Morse, Ph.D., author of Smart Sex: Finding Life-Long Love in a Hook-up World and Love and Economics: Why the Laissez-Faire Family Doesn’t Work, recently criticized my co-authored column Ruling in Vermont Same-Sex Child Custody Case: Lesbian Moms, Divorced Dads in Same Boat (Rutland Herald and others, 12/10/06). In that column I defended the parental rights of lesbian social mom Janet Jenkins against the legal machinations of Lisa Miller, the biological mother and her former partner in a Vermont Civil Union. Jenkins and Miller planned the child, used an anonymous sperm donor, and together raised their girl Isabella for the first couple years of her life.
Below is Morse's column Are Dads Disposable? (Townhall, 2/6/07), with my comments interspersed. Morse writes:
I hate to disagree with my friend Glenn Sacks, but I think he has missed the boat in his recent comparison of lesbian 'social' mothers with divorced fathers. Mr. Sacks, a prominent fathers’ rights advocate, is correct that in both cases, family law courts diminish the claims of people who want to maintain a relationship with a child. But he is very much mistaken in equating the validity of the two types of claims. And fatherhood is at risk, no matter how the court resolves particular disputes between estranged lesbian partners.
[In Miller v. Jenkins I would disagree that "fatherhood is at risk," since there is no father, only an anonymous sperm donor].
In the Miller v. Jenkins custody dispute between members of a lesbian couple, the biological mother of the child is attempting to prevent her former partner from seeing her child. Mr. Sacks argues that the former lesbian partner corresponds to the dispossessed father in garden-variety custody cases. He correctly notes that many mothers attempt to sever ties between their children and their biological father. Since the estranged husband is a “former partner” just as the lesbian social mother is the “former partner,” Sacks seems to suggest that their claims are equally deserving of court protection.
But the lesbian “former partner” has no biological connection to the child whatsoever, while the divorced mother’s “former partner” is the father of the children. Biological fathers are strangely absent from lesbian custody cases. The only reason the lesbian partners could have a child together in the first place is that the rights of the father are deliberately obliterated. The law creates a fiction that anonymous sperm donors are “legal strangers” to their children.
[The "rights of the father" were first "deliberately obliterated" by the man who donated his sperm to a sperm bank, and I believe the law's "fiction" that "anonymous sperm donors are 'legal strangers' to their children" is appropriate. This is not an example of obliterating a father's rights, such as when a woman has a child with her husband, divorces him, finds a new partner (whether a man or a woman), pushes him out of his children's lives, and substitutes her new partner as the child's other "parent."]
The biological father makes a cameo appearance in the 2005 Washington case, In re the Parentage of L.B. The lesbian couple used the semen of a friend, rather than an anonymous sperm donor. When the couple broke up, the biological mother cut off contact between her child and her former partner. The mother formed a relationship with the biological father, and they ultimately married. The father’s name was added to the birth certificate.
[This is interesting, but it is completely different than the Miller v. Jenkins case I wrote about, and also different from the other lesbian social mother cases I've discussed, which are similar to Miller v. Jenkins].
The former partner successfully petitioned to obtain the status of “de facto parent.” This status gives her the same parental rights as the child’s biological parents. The court established a four-part test for determining whether a person warrants the status of "de facto parent."
The dissenting judge, James Johnson, objected to this arbitrary determination of parental status. A perfectly fit biological and legal mother has the right to determine whom her child associates with. The only legal question is who is the child’s mother? The state legislature had clearly established methods for determining maternity of a child, including adoption. According to Judge Johnson, the social mother could have become the adoptive second mother of the child, with the biological mother’s consent, during the time that their relationship was intact and functioning. The couple chose not to take the step of second party adoption. Therefore, the estranged partner meets none of the legal requirements of parenthood.
In the meantime, the biological father, currently married to the child’s mother, is nowhere considered in this dispute. Perhaps he started off being just a nice guy, trying to help out his friends. The woman who used to be his wife’s sex partner now has equal parenting rights with her. His paternal rights are subordinate to the rights of his wife and her former partner. The fact that these two women used to have sex with each other is a more relevant fact than his paternity. He has no rights that the family court need respect.
[This is apples and oranges--there is no way that we could describe Janet Jenkins as simply being the woman Lisa Miller "used to have sex with." During Jenkins’ and Miller’s same sex-union Jenkins did everything she could do to be a good parent to their child--she was involved with the pregnancy from the beginning, was present in the delivery room, worked to support the family, and played an important role in Isabella’s life.
I'm also not nearly as sympathetic to the father in the Washington case as Morse is. Morse sees him as a victim--"He has no rights that the family court need respect." Yet he is in this position principally because he decided to be a sperm donor to the lesbian couple--if he really wanted to be a father with the rights of a father, this sure is a strange and risky way to go about it.]
Any random person who once had a relationship with a biological parent can potentially present themselves as a “de facto parent.” Any random person who once had a relationship with a biological parent can potentially present themselves as a “de facto parent.”Any random person who once had a relationship with a biological parent can potentially present themselves as a “de facto parent.”
[Janet Jenkins is hardly "Any random person who once had a relationship with a biological parent"--she and Miller agreed to have the child together, as part of the Civil Union which they obtained in Vermont.]Suppose a husband and wife divorce. The wife gets the kids. She has a live-in boyfriend for a few years. If he meets the four-part test established by this court, he could obtain de facto parent status. That former boyfriend could have equal parenting rights with the two biological parents. This is far too much discretion to allow the family courts.
[No, in a divorce (assuming fitness) the father and mother should have equal rights to the children, and no other individual should have parenting rights, just as Lisa Miller and Janet Jenkins had a child together and both should have equal rights to the child.]
This is why the comparison between former lesbian partners and former married parents is not the relevant comparison. The proper comparison is between biological parents and other people. Let us call them “non-parents.” Trying to shoe-horn the lesbian partner into the legal slot formerly occupied by the father can only work if the father is safely out of the way. The Washington case strips away that fiction because the father was known to all parties. The law treats him as a non-person because that is what the law surrounding anonymous sperm donors requires.
[In Miller v. Jenkins there is no father, and both Miller and Jenkins agreed before they ever had the child that Jenkins would "fill the slot" normally occupied by the father.]
This is why I am surprised that fathers’ rights advocate Glenn Sacks has taken this bait. What the state does or doesn’t do for lesbian social mothers does not concern me nearly as much as what the state has done and continues to do to fathers. The special legal status which treats a father as a “legal stranger” to his child does not further the interests of men, even desperate college kids who sell their sperm for two hundred bucks.
Family courts have been treating dads as disposable for far too long. Let’s not give them another occasion to do so by making this inopportune comparison of the estranged lesbian partner with divorced fathers.
[Far from having "taken the bait" and taken a position which weakens fathers, I believe that these lesbian "divorce" cases can be a very useful public relations lever to help fathers. Right now society tolerates fathers being driven out of their children's lives, in part because of anti-male stereotypes and men's lack of political power when they speak as men. As we see lesbian biological mothers driving lesbian social mothers out of their children's lives and using the exact same tactics which heterosexual women employ, I believe it will help bring the massive injustices divorced and separated fathers face to greater prominence and legitimacy.
I also believe it will help our movement reach out to those on the political left, which I believe is essential for our success.
As with disenfranchised fathers, I also do have genuine sympathy for Jenkins and the little girl who loves her, as a child loves a parent.]
"));
19 queries. 0.448 seconds.
February 21st, 2007 at 3:08 am
Far from having “taken the bait” and taken a position which weakens fathers, I believe that these lesbian “divorce” cases can be a very useful public relations lever to help fathers. Right now society tolerates fathers being driven out of their children’s lives, in part because of anti-male stereotypes and men’s lack of political power when they speak as men. As we see lesbian biological mothers driving lesbian social mothers out of their children’s lives and using the exact same tactics which heterosexual women employ, I believe it will help bring the massive injustices divorced and separated fathers face to greater prominence and legitimacy.
It will be interesting to see how extremists blame this on the patriarchy. (I am curious how anthropologists view the patriarchy. From my undergraduate anthro minor (25 years ago), and from doing some very very brief reading a few days ago, it would seem that tenured anthropologists would disagree with the women's studies notion (and blame) of the patriarchy.)
I also believe it will help our movement reach out to those on the political left, which I believe is essential for our success.
I agree completely with this.
February 21st, 2007 at 7:08 am
"And fatherhood is at risk, no matter how the court resolves particular disputes between estranged lesbian partners."
I agree since the language of the law is such that legislators and judges can claim that it is not biased.
"I believe that these lesbian “divorce” cases can be a very useful public relations lever to help fathers. Right now society tolerates fathers being driven out of their children’s lives, in part because of anti-male stereotypes and men’s lack of political power when they speak as men. As we see lesbian biological mothers driving lesbian social mothers out of their children’s lives and using the exact same tactics which heterosexual women employ, I believe it will help bring the massive injustices divorced and separated fathers face to greater prominence and legitimacy."
I agree. "Can be" is a key phrase. How could a National Organization of Men make it so?
February 21st, 2007 at 12:29 pm
There are two aspects to this debate. First, a case like this is an excellent way to demonstrate a consistent application of law to all. Since this case removes the gender from the equation, it makes one think that this gender-free application of law can be applied to the benefit of fathers, by ensuring a consistent standard. On this I agree: once a law exists, it should apply to all. On this basis, the decision is completely correct and might benefit fathers, if it is followed.
The second aspect is that the ruling takes one step further toward dismissing biology to determine a legal definition of parenthood. This is my concern, that legal parents can be different from real (biological) parents. The endpoint to this slippery slope is far more dangerous in my view. Encroaching on the rights of biological parents in favor of those who assert legal connections in their place is dangerous. How many people have children who spend more waking time with teachers than with themselves? That is where this legally-based argument can lead. It may seem extreme today, but only a few decades ago, the idea of a child with two mothers and no father was extreme. No matter how much involvement the social mom had, I shudder to think that a child can be legally assigned to someone with no biological connection. Even if the law is applied equally, to me it is bad law that is the real problem.
Mr. Sacks is (too) optimistic in assuming that courts can differentiate between deep parental involvement, and a trumped-up story. A trumped-up story under this system can indeed produce parental rights from any supposed partner, rights which may last many years while the courts may investigate their validity. If the ladies involved had switched roles (i.e., the one who moved away did not bear the child, and did not make a genetic contribution), would Mr. Sacks and others support going after the leaving party for child support? For consistency of law, yes. For common sense, no. (You could go a step further and have a lesbian relationship where one party gets inseminated in order to trap the other into maintaining the relationship, or into making CS payments... On the other hand, having more women show up on the 'most wanted deadbeats' CS rolls might highlight the absurdity of a bad law even more.)
If you want to highlight bad laws to generate publicity for how harmful it is, support this decision. If you want to support the rights of biological parents to raise their own children, then this decision is a strike the other way.
I am dubious of the publicity benefits: as a slice of the public, the percentage of people that truly relate to lesbian marriage and dual motherhood is very small. On the other hand, parents with no rights to see their children are far more numerous. Opposing the real-life outcome in favor of the rights of biological parents, is a winner in real terms: it will correct more injustice, it will resonate with more people, and it is a better foundation from which to make future laws for future situations.
February 22nd, 2007 at 1:58 am
Well Glenn,
What surprises me the most, Jennifer Morse has a PH.D. and has missed seeing the whole picture.
I agree with your point of view. Hopefully Morse, will take a few moments to consider your rebuttal.
I believe:
1.) Sperm donors wishing to remain anonymous should remain protected and should do so only if they have waive any rights to any resulting child.
2.) If lesbian couples decide together to bring a child into this world, then it is their responsibility to assure that the child is cared for and neither party of this act can be removed from the parenting role, regardless of the gender of the two consenting adults. In the case of child support, there will be a custodial parent and a non-custodial parent. Where's the problem?
The other case that Morse through into the mix, is a totally different case and surely has an issue of parental rights. However, in that case, Morse left out facts of the case, which would allow me to comment further and leaves me questioning whether the father signed away his parental rights to the lesbian couple. This would certainly change my view on that case if he did.
February 22nd, 2007 at 2:32 am
I agree with Roberta Morse, the bonds that guide a child's heart are for the mother and father. The idea that the family court system in this country can allow the father to be removed from the childs life as cruely as the current system espouses demonstrates that the natural bonds of a child are not respected. The partner of a lesbian is no different in the natural bonds of a child than a baby sitter, nanny, or aunt. The removal of one of those character roles from the child's life does not traumatize the child for any duration. But the removal of the father or mother absolutely tramatizes the child for the rest of that childs natural life.
February 22nd, 2007 at 4:44 am
Both Dr. Morse and Glenn Sacks have some good points. The fact that biological fathers have been consistently mistreated by the family courts has largely been ignored by mainstream America until the idea of civil unions between gays and lesbians became a reality. I have been following this change in the social climate for quite some time and have wondered just what kind of treatment lesbian biological and social mothers would receive by the system if their unions break up. Since many of the players in the family court system (i.e. caseworkers, hearing officers, etc.) are themselves lesbian, I have always been curious as to how they would handle ruling against one of their own. The easiest thing to do is treat social mothers like biological fathers in cases of divorce. However, that has touched off a firestorm unlike any that has been seen before. Glenn is right. This new social climate is definately raising awareness about the bias in the family courts that, until recently, has been leveled mainly against men. Roberta Morse is also right about the need for two biological parents to remain active in their children's lives. It takes two people to create a child. The natural ground rules of parenting are as old as time, dating back to the Garden of Eden. Adam's job was to provide for his wife (helpmate in biblical terms) and family in any way he could. Eve's job was to cultivate the family and care for the children in partnership with her husband (also known as helpmate in biblical terms). But it took both of them working together to raise them. However, the family court system today goes to great lengths to insure that these natural rules of parenting are ignored and allow children to be traumatized by the loss of a parent for little or no reason. Unless a parent is a true danger to his/her children, both should be allowed to raise the children together despite their differences and should act like adults, putting aside those differences for the sake of their children.
February 22nd, 2007 at 7:53 am
It seems this case (Jenkins) is very similar to what happens to the "duped" non-biological father, who has to continue all economic support of the child, but no longer has a right to be part of the child's life. I have to agree Glenn - what is happening here is consistent with what happens to fathers, biological or not.
All children have the "right" to both parents and the court should enforce those rights!
KM
February 22nd, 2007 at 9:06 am
"2.) If lesbian couples decide together to bring a child into this world, then it is their responsibility to assure that the child is cared for and neither party of this act can be removed from the parenting role, regardless of the gender of the two consenting adults. In the case of child support, there will be a custodial parent and a non-custodial parent. Where’s the problem?"
The goverment reserves the right of elected government officials (judges) to remove a person from a parenting role (including biological fathers) regardless of any prior agreements (such as marriage).
The terms custodial and non-custodial parent are meaningless if the parenting role is shared 50/50.
February 22nd, 2007 at 9:27 am
"Since many of the players in the family court system (i.e. caseworkers, hearing officers, etc.) are themselves lesbian, I have always been curious as to how they would handle ruling against one of their own.
Do you think that some of them do not like fathers?
"The easiest thing to do is treat social mothers like biological fathers in cases of divorce. However, that has touched off a firestorm unlike any that has been seen before. "
How will this firestorm be resolved? (For purposes of this custody hearing, please indicate on the following form whether you are eligible to be treated as a lesbian social mother (please refer to Publication 9782), or if you must be treated as a biological father.)
February 22nd, 2007 at 9:29 am
While we are argueing parents rights sometimess it is valuable to ask the child. My neighbors are a lesbian couple and absolutely wonderful. This story was relayed to me. In a past relationship that one of my neighbors was in she and her partner decided to have a child. 25 years ago they had a son. When the son was 11 they split up and the biological mother took the son and disappeared. For 14 yrs. silence, no contact. The now young man was recently injured in Iraq. He lost an arm and an eye as well as half his body was burned. For Some reason the biological mom thought my neighbor should know he was alright. She didn't know he was injured. Numbers were exchanged and the "social mom" contacted her son. His comment "hi mom, where have you been". She told him she did not know where he was for all this time. The son worried about her, and was lead to believe the social mom was out of his life by choice. Once he talked to her and came to some realizations he realized his "mom' kept him away from his "mom" for 14 yrs. needlessly. The biological mom has known where the social mom has been the entire time. The son was outraged that he lived his mothers lie for most of his life. It is unfortunate that these arguements are about rights. As parents we should be asking about moral character as a qualification to be a parents. Personally I don't have a moral position on gender, race or sexual identity. I do have a moral position on deceit, dishonesty, cruelty. As is the problem in many situation the fight is for control.of people, not control of ourselves.
In the situations above I ask "Why does the DA and police department sit by and support people lieing in false accusation and not charge then with obstruction of justice?" Why does The Bar allow lawyers to give clients the suggestion of making false claims. Every false claim that can be proven in court should be tried. Lawyers should be disbarred for intentionally misleading the court.
Until the simple quality of honesty is the means in which we do things the arguements will continue. The truth is defined by facts not feelings.
February 22nd, 2007 at 9:34 am
It is the biological mothers right over all other parties concerning care of children, can a father breastfeed his infant or toddler? Will a judge decide if the child should be nourished at the breast to allow the father to spend more time with his child. Children, not men or women will generally choose where they want to be and 90% of the time they will choose their mother. Sorry but that is the truth of the matter. Children are at much less risk from males sexual and criminal behavior than in the care of females. There has never been a society where the children have been raised by males in all of the animal kingdom and if there were it didn't last long.
February 22nd, 2007 at 10:02 am
sharon,
First, you can not compare animals to humans. They survive on instinct, we are (supposed to be) capable of rational thought and communication. Second, wherever did you get the "fact" that children will choose the mother 90% of the time? And this line "Children are at much less risk from males sexual and criminal behavior than in the care of females." is so far out in left field I really don't know what to say. I don't mean your wording, which really does confuse, but the jist of that line. To me, you are implying that all men, when left alone with their children, will sexually assault them unless the child is "protected" by their mother. That is so absurd.
Neither parent has more right over their child than the other parent. It has nothing to do with breastfeeding, either. In case you were wondering, I am a MOM to a teenager, who is divorced. Yes, I do have custody and IN MY CASE it was her choice. She was old enough by the time of the divorce that the judge would take her opinion into consideration. In most states the judge will not even consider the child's wishes unless they are at least 12 years of age. I also don't think you are taking into consideration the mom's who coerce their kids into saying they want to live with her. I would say in almost ALL cases (not just 90%) the last thing a child wants to do is be put in the position of having to choose one parent over the other. Just imagine being that child and “just knowing” that if I choose dad then mom is going to think I don’t love her anymore; but if I choose mom then dad is going to think I don’t love him anymore; what do I do?! This child will end up with ulcers. Unless mom and dad can work to get along for the sake of their children.
Shared parenting is difficult, but can be done when all selfishness/attitude/hard feelings are put aside and the children are put first.
February 22nd, 2007 at 10:27 am
One more thing, sharon. Seahorses. The males carry, give birth and raise their young, all while mom is out of the picture. And it works for them.
February 22nd, 2007 at 10:41 am
I just want to support what Jean had previously stated. My parents divorced when I was approximately 13yo. My mother for the last several years had been somewhat abusive (not dramatically, but still somewhat abusive) and manipulative. As such, when they divorced I chose to live with my father since my parents and the judge agreed that my choice would decide the matter. Well, to cut a long story short, eventually my mother's insecurity that I had chosen my father because I disliked/hated/wanted nothing to do with her (in truth I had nothing against her other than disliking her manipulations and whatnot) decided to cut all legal ties to me. I have not had any contact with her in about 10 years now. Getting to choose which parent is the primary custody holder may be beneficial in SOME cases, but it can also put the child in a horrible position. While I am glad I was able to choose and not placed by default with my mother I still hate that I forced to choose between parents.
February 22nd, 2007 at 11:29 am
Statistics show that living with the father is safest for children.
"The Bar allow lawyers to give clients the suggestion of making false claims."
I don't think that this is their "official" position. I don't know if there are any official restrictions on judge shopping, however.
"...decided to cut all legal ties to me."
When a mother acts with the belief that she owns the children, the children can be affected. Conflicts between the mother and the children can result. Sometimes fathers can become the custodial parent. Mothers are more likely than fathers to default on child support.
February 22nd, 2007 at 3:52 pm
To Sharon-
My 3 children would have chosen to live with their mother, if they had had the choice. However, the main reason is because they were afraid of how hard, where and for how long they would be hit if they answered wrong. When children are taught to be tools of one parent, their choices can be poor ones.
To others: please be careful in assigning the rights of a parent to someone whose wonderful loving bonds do not include biological ones. In this case, the social mom lived with the child for a year, maybe two. If this had been an unmarried stepfather, there would be no debate. If this child had been related to a father who lived with a stepmother, there would be no debate. If the wonderful loving bonds had been from an uncle or a grandparent, or a next-door neighbor, there would be no debate. Marriage creates a legal and moral bond between two adults, not between a child and their nurturer, no matter who they may be. If this had been a hired housekeeper, followed by a loving (lesbian) relationship, and later by a bond between the child and this person, should that person have a right to custody? It seems absurd. A parent is not established by giving time or love; that would allow schoolteachers and day-care providers to claim custody rights. A parent is not established by marriage either, unless you really want all step-parents to have rights equal to those of biological parents (and then you'd see biological parents get reduced custody because of the re-marriage of their ex). A parent is established by genetics.
A parent that marries the wrong person, and ends up with a divorce is a shame. And a parent that puts their child in the loving care of another, and then breaks the bond, does something sad. Many people make mistakes while raising children, and the results are always sad, but none of those mistakes should end up with someone obtaining parental rights just because they want them. Those that want to make decisions and have rights over another person without actually being their parent are busybodies, extending their ego beyond their dignity and discretion.
Every pregnant woman that visits a supermarket quickly learns there are many interested parties that all assume they know more than the mom does. Many of these busybodies, if they had legal power to do so, would dictate the terms of your child's upbringing. They would do so with the best loving intentions, regardless of your free will. Give them an inch, they'll take a mile. Don't let them get their hands on your baby, even if you marry them by mistake. Children are not the property of a legal contract, and should not be treated that way; they are the product of two who have a unique and natural link. Those two parties should share both the obligations and the joys. Helping with the obligations shouldn't let anyone take away the child.
February 22nd, 2007 at 4:07 pm
Much shorter:
I can't help but think that if one party was a man, this would be obvious. If the non-biological dad (aka stepdad) were to ask for rights, it would (and should) be laughed out of court. If the dad was the real father, and the non-biological mom (aka stepmom) asked for rights, she would get none.
Why the fuss?
February 22nd, 2007 at 4:24 pm
To Sharon, Male penguins also care for their young during the arctic winters while mom spends her days and nights elsewhere fattening up on fish. They (males) do not even eat throughout the winter and nurse their young in the only way they can. I would like to know what rock you crawled out from under. Judging from your message, you sound like one who believes in the outrageous feminist hysterics that are commonly used to unilaterally rip children away from their fathers when there is no reason to. In case you are wondering, I am the mother of an adult daughter from a previous relationship. The man I like to think of as her true father is a man I met 4 years after her birth. He helped me raise her as if she were his own. He paid for doctors, dentists, etc. for her. He even paid for tutors when she was having learning difficulties in school. He always made sure she never did without. She was well fed and clothed, and no, he never abused her. There was no "court" forcing him to do this. He accepted this responsibility willingly. You obviously have severe emotional problems regarding most if not all members of the male gender. It is high time you took your head out of your posterier and got a good dose of reality. BTW, breast-feeding is not mandatory in today's society with all the commercial infant formulas out on the market so your argument about a man being unfit as a parent because he cannot "breastfeed" is unfounded, so is your obvious mis-information regarding the tendancy of men to abuse children.
February 22nd, 2007 at 5:29 pm
Sharon ,
My my, but you are whacked! Mothers are limited in their abilities, which is why Fathers are one half of the package. Fathers supply the the rest of what a child needs and the child will be found to be sorely lacking when the father is removed. Most psychology studies have consistently demonstrated that women are the greater abusers in family relationships. The reason the fathers have the bad rap is because when they are abusive the damage matches their strength and the abuse can not be hidden which is the case in maternal abuse. As far as your breast feeding comment, supplying enough milk to send with the baby is a fairly simple process, making the use of that arguement extraordinarily lame.
February 22nd, 2007 at 6:33 pm
There is an inconsistency which makes the argument attractive ... that social moms should be equated with "fathers". At least in NY, a woman's husband, at the time of her child's birth, is legally the child's father, regardless of where the sperm came from (anonymous or not); for legally united lesbian couples, the consideration of the non-birth mother as the legal equivalent of a father should not be such a stretch, but the logic could get tricky if you should have to consider the possibilities applicable to a gay male union under current legal frameworks. Doesn't that just mean that the core problem is FAMILY LAW IS SEXIST AND ARCHAIC? I would argue that Glenn and Jennifer are both on, and off, the mark ... where one wants to include lesbian union "dads" in family law, the other fails to mention that unmarried biological fathers (not sperm donors who have signed away their legal rights) also have very limited rights (despite potentially onerous responsibilities), even if they were both desirous and fit to be full-time parents. Family law should ultimately be updated to eliminate the sexual bias, in order to promote maximum access of the CHILDREN to their parents.
Personally, what I think is inconsistent is that a state can legally sanction the creation of a family unit, without similarly addressing the responsibilities upon dissolution: for example, how can the state encourage the creation of the "family", without requiring after the break-up that the "losing" parent pay child support, and be entitled to every-other-weekend visitation? Nonetheless, you can lead a politician to reason, but you can't make him think!
February 23rd, 2007 at 8:43 am
"If the non-biological dad (aka stepdad) were to ask for rights, it would (and should) be laughed out of court. If the dad was the real father, and the non-biological mom (aka stepmom) asked for rights, she would get none."
Even in the case you describe, I don't think it should be so clear cut.
If the couple live together and meet the threshhold of a common law marriage and the biological father has abrogated his rights, then the step father should have a right to adopt the children and choose half custody.
In the case of the social mom, the two mothers decided to have the child together as an unwed couple, and therefore to the extent that there is evidence that this is so, her case is even stronger.
February 23rd, 2007 at 8:51 am
"Mothers are limited in their abilities, which is why Fathers are one half of the package. Fathers supply the the rest of what a child needs and the child will be found to be sorely lacking when the father is removed. "
Men and women tend to be different as parents simply because people are different. In most cases and in this case in particular, I would prefer to say that two parents are better than one.
February 23rd, 2007 at 9:35 am
Biology will always win, no matter what the court says. That child is made up of half mom and half dad, you can't argue with DNA. A child who has never seen his Dad nor knows a thing about him, will still grow up to look and act a lot like him, no matter who else bonded with him or raised him. If you don't honor those two significant biological bonds in a child, you deeply damage the child.
February 23rd, 2007 at 9:59 am
"Biology will always win, no matter what the court says. That child is made up of half mom and half dad, you can’t argue with DNA. A child who has never seen his Dad nor knows a thing about him, will still grow up to look and act a lot like him, no matter who else bonded with him or raised him. If you don’t honor those two significant biological bonds in a child, you deeply damage the child. "
I don't know what you mean by "win" or by "honor." I do know that mitochondrial DNA is inherited from the mother only.
I would like the law to respect parents' rights to choose half custody in case of divorce or separation. Nothing more and nothing less.
February 23rd, 2007 at 10:57 am
To Michael H-
Every case is different, but when we talk about this case I think the particulars lead in one direction. If you married a woman with a newborn child, or newly pregnant with child, then lived with that child for 1½ years (the child was 25 months old at the time of the custody hearing), and then the marriage broke up, would you really expect to keep half custody of that child? In that situation I wouldn't expect it, nor would I ask for it, even in the belief that the mother was making a mistake by moving away. If I, as a father, married a woman who bonded with my child for that time, and then we broke up, I would feel profound indignation if she expected or asked for parental rights (which is very different from having social contacts, which may or may not be appropriate) for that child, even if my own decision to break up was foolhardy or done for the wrong reasons. I am divorced from the mother of my children today, and while I do not like their mother or approve of her or how she raises the children, I don't take offense at the fact that she has parental rights; it seems correct for the children, even while I believe she is a poor parent. Morally, to me, this is a bright line, and I think our laws should reflect that. If the law does not, I think the law should change.
The main difference between my examples above and this case is that the women in this case had created a legal relationship together before the child existed. I disagree with the assumption that this legal relationship between the two adults is sufficient to determine that both adults are parents, and entitled to rights over the child. If your moral sense favors the idea that this legal relationship is enough to grant parenthood status to both parties, there are other legal contradictions to come. These include decisions that assign parent status to biological fathers of children born outside of any marriage, or born into a marriage where the father was not a party, both of which apparently happen on a regular basis. If a married man and a married woman who are not married to each other produce a child together, should parental rights and responsibilities be assigned to two parents, or to four? And even if the spouses who did not produce the child participate in raising the child, I believe they should do so without guarantee of custody, at risk of losing the bonds that they build. Some will win, some will lose, but government should not guarantee and cannot guarantee that our investments of love and time will ever pay off.
We can make legal constructions to cover all these cases, but my observation is that family law is a blunt instrument to apply to families. Instead of extending it to cover more contingencies and complicating matters further, I prefer to argue for its role in our lives to shrink, and to let parenthood be determined by the natural law of biology instead. I think this is a decision that expands the role of the court unnecessarily, and I prefer that the court instruct a non-biological, non-adopting parent to move on without recourse. Do you agree?
February 23rd, 2007 at 8:41 pm
"I think this is a decision that expands the role of the court unnecessarily, and I prefer that the court instruct a non-biological, non-adopting parent to move on without recourse. Do you agree?"
I do not like judicial discretion. I prefer that the government respect parental rights. I understand that in some cases, a judge will have to decide whether or not a person should retain parental rights. For example, if a biological father or mother provides neither care nor financial support for the children, then he or she cannot retain the ability to prevent the true parent from moving away.
Case 1 - The lesbian social mom - In this case, a judge is asked to decide whether or not the social mom is a parent. If the couple were married, especially when the baby was conceived, (did they marry in Vermont?), then judicial discretion should not be required. The answer should be yes. Should they be allowed to marry? I lean towards yes, but I respect differing opinions.
Case 2 - "If a married man and a married woman who are not married to each other produce a child together, should parental rights and responsibilities be assigned to two parents, or to four?"
Generally, the biological mother retains parental rights and responsibilities. Her husband then gets a choice. He should have a year to make the choice starting when he finds out that the child is not his. If the wife and the husband are separated, and the child is a baby, then the husband will inform someone that he is not the biological father. (If the child is older, the husband might make a different choice.) The mother should then be required to name the biological father. The boyfriend requests a paternity test which proves that the child is his. The boyfriend retains parental rights and responsibilities. I believe that this situation happens with some frequency. Two parents.
Case 3 - A woman has a child through a sperm donor and raises the child on her own for some number of years. She then lives together with a man for enough years that they become man and wife through common law marriage. The man does not adopt the child. Should the non-adopting, common law husband have parental rights and responsibilities?
I lean towards yes. I respect differing opinions though. This man has helped to raise the children for many years. Marriage, including a common law marriage, should have meaning.
February 23rd, 2007 at 8:52 pm
Here's the Wikipedia article on common law marriage. Many states no longer recognize common law marriage.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common-law_marriage
February 24th, 2007 at 4:02 am
Michael H Says:
February 23rd, 2007 at 8:51 am
“Mothers are limited in their abilities, which is why Fathers are one half of the package. Fathers supply the the rest of what a child needs and the child will be found to be sorely lacking when the father is removed. ”
Men and women tend to be different as parents simply because people are different. In most cases and in this case in particular, I would prefer to say that two parents are better than one.
Mike,
There is a substantial difference between how mothers interact and how fathers interact with their children. Now each mother and each father is individually different, however, this difference is not as marked as the difference between mothers and fathers. Both were created ideally for their roles, and there are only poor substitions for this created fact of life. This is why our current family law system is so wretched. There should be a fifty fifty split in child rearing if there is a seperation, even if the parents never married and fake dads or fake moms (gay folks), do not fulfill the created needs of the child. Not that they can not have a role in a childs life as a caring adult, but a woman is not a dad and a man is not a mom and sorry for this reality check but we humans did not create this fact of life.
February 24th, 2007 at 4:17 am
To Michael H. Are you an attorney? If not, you should be. You have apparently done some research in these matters. I would like your opinion on a couple of scenarios if that is okay.
1. A couple divorces, a child is involved. The father is ordered to pay child support but refuses, nor does he contribute anything at all towards the child's welfare (ie no clothing, shoes, financial help with doctor bills, etc). However, he continues to demand visitation and any other rights he can think of to the child, despite the fact that he spends his visitation times out bar-hopping with his friends while leaving his child in the care of others, and very little, if any, time with his child. Should he be allowed to retain visitation and any other rights he demands? Should the mother be subject to arrest if she disagrees with these demands? What if the child always comes back sick or upset (ie frightened) when that child was okay before the visitation took place?
2. A couple is unmarried but decides to have a child together (this goes for both gay/lesbian and heterosexual couples). Should one parent still be ordered to pay child support but not allowed any rights to the child because the couple was unmarried at the time of the birth? This is a scenario that happens quite often. In the case of heterosexual couples, there are some women out there who habitually have children out of wedlock but refuse to marry any of their fathers for the (tax-free) child support income.
If a couple decides to have a child together, they should both be involved in raising that child whether the birth was in wedlock or out. Another pet peeve is "state debt". A non-custodial parent should never be required to pay "state debt", Nor should it ever be considered child support and enforced as such, but it is. All of us as taxpayers provide the money for the federal government's public assistance programs. Why should a child support agency be allowed to double-dip and charge the non-custodial parent a second time for public assistance his ex allegedly received? All monies for social programs are freely granted by the federal government. The states pay nothing. Why should they be allowed to profit from money that was never theirs in the first place? States already receive a minimum payment of $10,000 in free money (no strings attached) from the Federal government for each and every child support case they create and enforce. Perhaps if the government were less involved in people's lives and the money trail less lucrative, there might actually be some fairness in the family court system.
February 24th, 2007 at 5:30 am
I am divorced from the mother of my children today, and while I do not like their mother or approve of her or how she raises the children, I don’t take offense at the fact that she has parental rights; it seems correct for the children, even while I believe she is a poor parent. Morally, to me, this is a bright line, and I think our laws should reflect that. If the law does not, I think the law should change.
Andy,
There have been generations of men that felt as you and their children suffered greatly. Sorry, but the children need more of their fathers than their paycheck and a dinner outing. Many men have not understood how to reach out to their kids, but that has been a mistake, and when men have reached out and taken their roles more seriously, the children benefit beyond all other choices. While a mans life may seem easier if he chooses to remain aloof, or hands off, that is an illusion. Only the narcisstic personality (which is more common among women), will not feel the effects of being removed from their children.
It may take a breaking from how one traditionally believed life should be, but a seperation of parents is a major break in a childs world and the parents needs to overcome this by a fifty fifty engagement, despite the more difficulties to their life style.
February 24th, 2007 at 7:39 am
"To Michael H. Are you an attorney?" No.
"1. A couple divorces, a child is involved. The father is ordered to pay child support but refuses, nor does he contribute anything at all towards the child’s welfare (ie no clothing, shoes, financial help with doctor bills, etc). However, he continues to demand visitation and any other rights he can think of to the child, despite the fact that he spends his visitation times out bar-hopping with his friends while leaving his child in the care of others, and very little, if any, time with his child. Should he be allowed to retain visitation and any other rights he demands? Should the mother be subject to arrest if she disagrees with these demands? What if the child always comes back sick or upset (ie frightened) when that child was okay before the visitation took place? "
Does the FFLM stereotype all fathers to fit this description?
As I stated, there are cases in which a judge must decide whether or not a person is a parent and biology should not trump all other considerations. I believe that child support should continue to be required. IMO, when parental rights are challenged, the courts do evaluate a person's standing as a parent. IMO, shared parenting would clear the courts to allow these cases to be evaluated sooner and with more energy.
"A couple is unmarried but decides to have a child together (this goes for both gay/lesbian and heterosexual couples). Should one parent still be ordered to pay child support but not allowed any rights to the child because the couple was unmarried at the time of the birth? This is a scenario that happens quite often. In the case of heterosexual couples, there are some women out there who habitually have children out of wedlock but refuse to marry any of their fathers for the (tax-free) child support income. "
If there is a spouse, he (or she) gets first choice. If a husband contests paternity, then the unmarried, biological father gets both parental rights and responsibilities. Again, I believe that this is how the courts currently operate. (However, I believe that the husband should be allowed to terminate both his parental rights and responsibilities within a year from the time he finds out that paternity fraud has occurred.) The next step is to allow the father to choose 50% custody. Child support is still appropriate.
"If a couple decides to have a child together, they should both be involved in raising that child whether the birth was in wedlock or out. "
Yes, I agree. I believe that unmarried, biological fathers do have parental rights as long as they do not abrogate the unwaived parental rights of a spouse at the time of the birth. All fathers (but only 1) should be allowed to choose 50% custody.
"Only the narcisstic personality (which is more common among women), will not feel the effects of being removed from their children."
I wouldn't be so hard on women. Anyone can act with narcissism at times. The reason that shared parenting reduces the divorce rate is because women do not want merely half custody and they cannot rely on the ability to take more than half custody away from the father.
That said, I believe that Michael Flood's statement that men don't really want their children is an outrage. How does he explain those men who live as celibate cuckolds in order to live with (and provide more financial support) for their children?
February 24th, 2007 at 12:50 pm
Michael,
I wouldn’t be so hard on women. Anyone can act with narcissism at times
I was not referring to selfishness most men and women have to various degrees, I was speaking of real narcissim which is a psychiatric disorder. Maybe it was confusing the way the association with females was inserted in the sentence which was describing why I do not believe men ever truly can have a hands off relationship with their children without manifesting that loss somewhere else. I believe the loss is felt by the children and the father, and if you look at the life you can see how the loss manifests itself in further poor choices. But, continuing with the thread of this conversation, I do not believe the same extent of loss is experienced by non-biological adult/child losses.
Narcissist are not able to feel much beyond their own needs which is the direction that I was going with the previous statement. They are a little harder to spot than say schizophrenics or bipolars, but they are every bit as dangerous.
I am guilty of sounding harder on women, mostly because I feel they have not been held accountable for their selfish choices, and this pattern does not help anyone, not the women or their children. Lying under oath for spite, using their childs father (the most or second most imp. person to that child) as a free ride, etc.etc. And our family law lawyers and judges find nothing wrong with this? And we let these short sighted so called professionals have so much influence in how our children are treated? As a woman, I will sound off where many men have cowered, and I will call a spade a spade.
February 26th, 2007 at 1:07 pm
Deb M-
Thanks for your comments, but I think you jumped to an easy conclusion because I only explained some of the situation. I agree with you that kids benefit greatly from having a father in their lives. I agree with you so much that I have worked very hard to make sure I could be a part of their lives, despite her best efforts to keep me out, doing things like telling the kids that a dad's only job for a baby is to drive mom to the hospital and that men aren't supposed to raise kids, and telling them often to prepare for the day when they would never see me again. I have not left my childrens' lives and I don't plan on it. When I left the marriage, I was saved myself, and then I got to work to save the kids from what I thought to be a bad situation. After a lot of time and diligent work, I have over 60% time with my kids, precisely because the court agreed that their mother was doing a poor job.
Despite that, I believe she ought to have important rights and participation in their lives, even though she would have things the other way. And, I would be offended if anyone besides her or me were able to claim parental rights in any way, shape or form. (She has another man who seems nice enough, and I will be re-marrying soon, but I don't think either of those people should get parental rights or obligations, except through their connections to either one of us.)
February 26th, 2007 at 3:23 pm
"... I feel they [women] have not been held accountable for their selfish choices, and this pattern does not help anyone, not the women or their children."
I have great respect for Karen DeCrow, former President of Now, who knew advocated for a legislative presumption for Shared Parenting with the realization that it is good for fathers, children and mothers.
"And, I would be offended if anyone besides her or me were able to claim parental rights in any way, shape or form. "
I agree. There can be no more than two parents.
February 26th, 2007 at 7:14 pm
Andy S. - What you are describing sounds like a classic case of Parental Alienation Syndrome (PAS), as well as child abuse. Your ex is selfishly and unnecessarily traumatizing your kids. Telling kids things like they should prepare themselves to never see you again might make the kids think you are gravely ill and likely to die soon. No child wants to lose a parent. They may not understand that what she really means is that she is working to strip you of all parental rights and in doing so, completely boot you out of their lives, simply because that is the scenario that suits her. This woman sounds like she is a bit unstable. Perhaps you should sue for full custody, if you have not already. There's also the possiblity she wants her new "main squeeze" to replace you as the children's daddy. I do not know the ages of your kids, but if they are under the age of 12, they could easily have some serious psychological problems before they reach adulthood because of your ex's behavior as described above. It is always best for kids to have 2 parents, whether due to biological parents staying involved in their lives or in blended families where there is a stable marriage between the parties. The bottom line is that every child wants to feel safe and loved, no matter how diverse their home life may be.
February 26th, 2007 at 7:26 pm
Thanks for the reply, I also agree with your premise on the importance of the mom and dad, and how no one else can ever replace the bio mother and father, especially while they are still alive.
Keep up the good work.
February 27th, 2007 at 9:09 am
This all sounds like a strong reason to support a Constitutional amendment in favor of same sex marriage.
May 3rd, 2007 at 9:57 am
The amonymous sperm donor is "curiously absent" as a father? What nonsense! When straight couples use a sperm donor because the husband is infertile no one cares about the bio-father for one second. If lesbians use an anonymous donor to have kids why should they suddenly be tied to a stranger's whims for 18 years?
Also, that Washington woman in the original post who "married" the sperm donor did it only to make it seem the social mother should have no rights. She never lived with the guy or had anything else to do with him afterwards. It was a complete fiction.