Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Supreme Court Lets Lesbian Partner Be 'De Facto Parent'
The Indy Channel ^ | May 15, 2006 | AP

Posted on 05/15/2006 11:54:28 AM PDT by Abathar

WASHINGTON -- The U.S. Supreme Court is taking a pass on a Washington state case about the rights of a gay parent.

The high court has refused to stop a lesbian from seeking parental rights to a child she helped raise with her partner.

Justices might have used the case to clarify child custody disputes in nontraditional families. But they declined without comment.

The Washington state Supreme Court said Sue Ellen Carvin is a "de facto parent" and could pursue parental rights with a girl who is now 11 years old.

The girl's biological mother, Page Britain, said that could "pave the way for children to have an unlimited and ever-changing number of parents."

Carvin and Britain lived together for 12 years. Britain was artificially inseminated and gave birth in 1995. They raised the daughter together for six years. Carvin stayed home, and the girl called her "Mama." The girl called Britain "Mommy."

Britain and Carvin split. Britain married the sperm donor and barred Carvin from seeing the girl.

Carvin sued in November 2002 in King County Superior Court in Seattle.

A Scottsdale, Ariz., lawyer who worked on the case, Jordan Lorence with the Alliance Defense Fund for traditional families, said the U.S. Supreme Court will eventually have to settle various de-facto parent rulings from different states.

He said the Washington state Supreme Court decision left a huge mess because it allows a number of unrelated people -- such as nannies or baby sitters -- to seek parental status.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Government; News/Current Events; US: Washington
KEYWORDS: britainvcarvin; homosexualadoption; homosexualagenda; ruling; scotus; sick; sickandtwisted; twisted; twistedandsick; twistedsister
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-42 next last

1 posted on 05/15/2006 11:54:31 AM PDT by Abathar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Abathar

De Facto becomes De Jure.


2 posted on 05/15/2006 11:56:27 AM PDT by Semper Paratus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Abathar

This is quite the twist. Atleast she saw the light and raised her daughter in a normal household.


3 posted on 05/15/2006 11:57:32 AM PDT by HHKrepublican_2 (www.Rogers2006.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Semper Paratus

Family law cases are almost always state issues, so the USSC leaving it alone seems correct.

I'm not even sure the US Supreme court would have jurisdiction (jurisdiction given by Congress).

Note, this is not a comment on the wisdom of the lower state courts.


4 posted on 05/15/2006 11:58:42 AM PDT by MeanWestTexan (Many at FR would respond to Christ "Darn right, I'll cast the first stone!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Abathar

The cat is out of the bag. What a mess this will be. I hope the homosexuals are happy now. Too bad the children will be the ones who suffer.


5 posted on 05/15/2006 11:58:52 AM PDT by mlc9852
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Semper Paratus
De Facto becomes De Jure.

Thus becoming De Mess.

6 posted on 05/15/2006 12:01:09 PM PDT by savedbygrace (SECURE THE BORDERS FIRST (I'M YELLING ON PURPOSE))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: MeanWestTexan
I'm not even sure the US Supreme court would have jurisdiction

If they started taking these family cases, the next nominee should be Judge Judy.

7 posted on 05/15/2006 12:01:28 PM PDT by Semper Paratus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Semper Paratus

Pretty much.


8 posted on 05/15/2006 12:02:25 PM PDT by MeanWestTexan (Many at FR would respond to Christ "Darn right, I'll cast the first stone!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

Comment #9 Removed by Moderator

To: XiaoHua

Who?


10 posted on 05/15/2006 12:08:31 PM PDT by mlc9852
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Semper Paratus
If they started taking these family cases, the next nominee should be Judge Judy.

I thought Harriet Miers was Judge Judy?

11 posted on 05/15/2006 12:10:05 PM PDT by Right Wing Professor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Abathar

I wonder if Alito and Roberts voted to pass on this case? I don't think both of them are moderates.


12 posted on 05/15/2006 12:13:33 PM PDT by TheCrusader ("The frenzy of the mohammedans has devastated the Churches of God" Pope Urban II ~ 1097A.D.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mlc9852

Nobody seems to think that these kids are being deprived of nature's natural gift of a mother and a father.

This woman raised this child for 6 years. Then the relationship was terminated, the mother married the father, and the child was told "this is the way it is". How horrible. It's like the kid is a rag doll, dragged here and there. I can't imagine her growing up with any faith in human relationships.

There is absolutely no way to do really right by this child at this point.


13 posted on 05/15/2006 12:18:19 PM PDT by I still care ("Remember... for it is the doom of men that they forget" - Merlin, from Excalibur)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: TheCrusader

They can, however, read the grant of jurisidiction which says "not family law disputes."

This is a state issue to screw up as the state sees fit.


14 posted on 05/15/2006 12:20:13 PM PDT by MeanWestTexan (Many at FR would respond to Christ "Darn right, I'll cast the first stone!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Abathar
Britain and Carvin split. Britain married the sperm donor

This is the part of the story that will drive the liberals nuts. One of the lesbians went straight.

15 posted on 05/15/2006 12:25:10 PM PDT by aimhigh
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: I still care

So will Angelina Jolie's old girlfriend harrass her and Ben?


16 posted on 05/15/2006 12:26:42 PM PDT by massgopguy (massgopguy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: massgopguy

Are "Live-In" boyfriends "partners" or do only Gays have that right?


17 posted on 05/15/2006 12:27:45 PM PDT by massgopguy (massgopguy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: MeanWestTexan
I agree with your analysis of this, I really don't think they should get involved unless we pass a constitutional amendment first. Leave this to the states for now.
18 posted on 05/15/2006 12:37:48 PM PDT by Abathar (Helen Thomas's first job was the practice dummy at the ugly-stick apprenticeship school.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: MeanWestTexan
As much as I would love to see the SCOUS put an end to this one (as currently constituted the might get it right) I agree with you, it's a state issue.

If this was filed in my old home state, the result would have been a foregone conclusion. Yet another reason I now live in NH.
19 posted on 05/15/2006 12:43:19 PM PDT by MAexile (Bats left, votes right)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: TheCrusader
If Roberts and Alito held true to their conservative values, then they would have voted not to hear the case.

This is a matter for the states, not the federal courts.

20 posted on 05/15/2006 12:45:35 PM PDT by COEXERJ145 (Real Leaders Base Their Decisions on Their Convictions. Wannabes Base Decisions on the Latest Poll.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-42 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson