Comments on: Non-Bio Moms Lose One, Win Two—Maybe

By: Mombian: Sustenance for Lesbian Moms » Blog Archive » Weekly Political Roundup

Sat, 17 Feb 2007 02:32:43 +0000

[...] The Utah Supreme Court ruled that non-biological parents do not have the right to seek visitation with children not related by blood. The case involved two lesbian moms who split after planning and raising a child together. The ruling will also apply to unmarried opposite-sex couples who have children together. This doesn’t mean equality, though: the bio-mom’s attorney has argued “biological parents must have the ability to sever both their own and their child’s relationships with those they have chosen not to marry and who have not adopted their child.” Let’s review: same-sex marriage in Utah is illegal. Joint adoption by same-sex couples is illegal. Second-parent adoption may or may not be legal. It’s ridiculous to punish someone for not doing something that is illegal for them to do. This is only the latest in a string of news about non-bio moms’ rights, and one of at least two headline cases where the bio mom is claiming that she is no longer a lesbian. My previous comments apply. Meanwhile, a Utah Senate committee has promoted a bill to the full Senate, similarly limiting non-biological parents’ rights. [...]

By: Mombian: Sustenance for Lesbian Moms » Blog Archive » Weekly Political Roundup

Fri, 15 Dec 2006 19:26:10 +0000

[...] The British government has announced fertility law reforms making both partners legal parents when lesbian couples conceive with donated sperm, or gay men use surrogacy. (Compare these recent custody cases involving non-bio moms in the U. S.) The reforms also remove older references to “the need for a father,” thus guaranteeing that lesbians and single women can get IVF and donor insemination services. Public Health Minister Caroline Flint notes, however, “Access to NHS fertility services is based on clinical need. If there is a clinical need for fertility treatment, then the provision of NHS treatment should be considered regardless of the patient’s sexual orientation.” The question remains open, then, as to whether being in a lesbian relationship counts as a “clinical need” for fertility treatment if the woman is otherwise healthy and fertile. (My answer is yes, of course, but I can imagine some will quibble.) [...]

By: Gina

Gina — Tue, 12 Dec 2006 15:08:35 +0000

Financial suppport is a function of one’s role as a legal parent. The court found that a child support obligation ARISES OUT OF one’s role as legal parent it does not create that role. To hold otherwise would be the equivalent of saying, I bought, I paid for it, its mine. In a dispute between a straight man and woman over the woman’s bio child conceived using ART would be precisely the same. The court also made clear that in disputes between legal parents financial support will be considered. Theh key is parental rights. Adoption, where available, is the clearer and more preferred method for obtaining parental rights. Adoption eliminates the argument. It is the equivalent of a DNA test. Your either are or you aren’t — the child is either adopted or not adopted. Why one would prefer a system wherein parental rights must be proved through contentious litigation versus a system where there is no question is the question we should all ponder.