Posted on 11/03/2005 5:19:59 PM PST by Aussie Dasher
The lesbian lover of a child's biological mother has equal legal rights with traditional parents, the Washington state Supreme Court ruled today.
The case involved a woman who raised a child from birth to age 6 while in a "relationship" with the girl's biological mother, the Associated Press reported. The ruling means the non-biological "mother" can seek parental rights as a "de facto parent."
"Today we hold that our common law recognizes the status of de facto parents and places them in parity with biological and adoptive parents in our state," the court, led by Justice Bobbe J. Bridge, wrote in the 7-2 decision. "Neither the United States Supreme Court nor this court has ever held that 'family' or 'parents' are terms limited in their definition by a strict biological prerequisite."
In 2002, Sue Ellen Carvin sued her former partner, Page Britain, alleging Britain, the girl's biological mother, unfairly cut off access to the child.
According to AP, several years ago the two women decided to parent a child together, and Britain was artificially inseminated, giving birth in 1995. For the next several years, Carvin stayed home to raise the girl, who called her "Mama" and Britain "Mommy."
A year and a half ago, the couple split up, with Britain marrying the biological father of her daughter.
While an appeals court found Carvin did not have rights under the state's Uniform Parentage Act, she could seek status as a "de facto or psychological parent" by providing evidence of a parent-child relationship.
"We strongly urge trial courts in this and similar cases to consider the interests of children in dependency, parentage, visitation, custody and support proceedings," the court wrote, and "to act on their behalf and represent their interests would be appropriate and in the interests of justice."
An end.
Revelation
The poor guy who squirted his contribution will probably end up paying the freight. LOL!.
Yup.
Some of it is going to make a point of not coming to Washington State for a while.
I have to hand it to him. He isn't scared to be the first man a newly stright woman is with after being with a woman for a long time. That's a lot of pressure. We aren't playing on home territory.
It's for the children.
/sarcasm off/
let them sleep with whomever or whatever blows their collective skirts up...so to speak....
....but kids should not be alowed into this type of perverse relationship
And yes, from this ruling she (the L-N0N-BM) should have to pay child support.... big time.
Where was the biological father the past 6 years?? This is too weird...
A year and a half ago, the couple split up, with Britain marrying the biological father of her daughter.
What was this lesbo thinking??? I'd bet she will get child support from her "former lesbo lover" and now has the biological father to also pay for the child's needs.
I smell Pepe Le Puuuuuugggghhhhh!!!
Bobbe Bridge is the alcoholic pal of Christine Gregoire.
majority opinion:
http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/?fa=opinions.opindisp&docid=756261MAJ
Dissent by the only two trustworthy judges on the court:
http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/?fa=opinions.opindisp&docid=756261DI1
pingout tomorrow or late tonight.
Hell in a handbasket time.
But it might be a healing crisis, so to speak.
Lesbian Lover >> Traditional unmarried lover.
If there was no adoption by the non-birth parent, there are no visiting rights. Can't leapfrog the laws.
This is what can happen when you have a lush--Bobbe Bridge--on the state supreme court.
LOL! I like the delicate way you worded that!
But let's dig into the timing of this case. Assuming the article writer got the facts straight, the little girl is 10, having been born in 1995. For the first 6 years of the child's life, our intrepid, uh, would-be-but-not-the-daddy stayed home to raise her while the biological mother went off to work, presumably bringing home the bacon. That brings us up to 2001-ish.
In 2002, Not-the-daddy filed a suit alleging that bio-mom was withholding the child from her presence. Not until "a year and a half ago" did "the couple split up." For the sake of expedience, that puts it around Spring of 2004 that the relationship was officially over; meanwhile, Mom up and married the sperm donor. Whatchoo wanna bet that's simply a marriage meant to bolster Mom's defense against Not-the-daddy's lawsuit? After having committed to the lesbian version of "expressing their love" and lifestyle, Mom's got a long way to go in convincing me she's been converted. And some guy weak-willed enough to go along with that in the first place isn't going to hesitate at the idea of a sham marriage. MHO.
So. A 10 y.o. girl is growing up in this environment. *sigh*
One step closer to the liberal and delusional utopian village of equality where the goverment is defacto parent...
A further stripping of the rights of biological parents to the point that unqualified and politically incorrect biological parents are lucky to be given the same parity as anyone that can muster a legal challenge be it step parents, grandparents, siblings, neighbors, coaches, teachers, etcetera...
Forget the reality about what is best for children let alone how children are even possible -- biological parents naturally are predisposed to always have the best interests for their children naturally -it is the exception when a biological parent will not sacrifice their life for their child -they child they already sacrificed for to conceive -conversely it is the exception when any other would do the same for the child of another. The parity of rights mandated by the courts flies in the face of the historical reality of the familial relationship -a microcosm of the macro underpinning procreative survival of the human race versus socially engineered legislative survival (socialism)...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.