On Monday, I posted happy news of changes to the Uniform Probate Code that would allow for greater recognition of non-bio moms.

Lawyer Nancy Polikoff, who was the source of the news, now lets us know of a custody case involving a non-bio mom that has me spitting nails in anger.

Leslea and Michelle White, who had been a couple for four years, each used the same anonymous sperm donor to become pregnant. Michelle gave birth to C.E.W., and Leslea to Z.A.W. (Not at the same time.) When the couple separated, the children both went between them for several months until Michelle refused to allow Leslea any contact with C.E.W. Polikoff explains:

Leslea filed for shared custody or visitation rights with C.E.W. and for child support for Z.A.W. The trial judge dismissed her case, and yesterday the Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed that dismissal.

The court held that Leslea lacked standing to file an action, so there was no consideration at all of the relationship between Leslea and C.E.W. for the first four years of C.E.W.’s life, let alone C.E.W.’s best interests. In the most offensive line in the opinion, the court rejected Leslea’s theories by saying that “neither our statutes nor our case law remotely suggest that any third party that comes along has standing to bring an action seeking custody of children.” (emphasis added). But of course Leslea is not “any third party.” To C.E.W., she is a mother. To the state of Missouri, she is a stranger.

The Missouri state motto is Salus populi suprema lex esto (“Let the good of the people be the supreme law”). In what universe is it for their good to keep these brothers apart, deny them each one of their parents, and deny child support to Z.A.W.?

Missouri is not alone, however. The decision follows a similar one last week by a Louisiana court of appeal.

Polikoff notes that Missouri state law gives parenting rights to a husband who consents to his wife’s insemination with donor semen. A model act by the American Bar Association has even gone further and extends parentage to an “individual” who so consents.

Just because the ABA says so doesn’t make it law in Missouri, but the state would be wise to sense the direction of the legal winds, if they can’t be swayed by the best interests of children.

Polikoff also writes, “I continue to believe that our communities need to apply pressure to biological mothers to honor the families they have created. Friends of Michelle . . . where were you?”

I put it to you, then, readers: How can we as a community assist here, not only in this case, but in all others? Do we need some kind of “name and shame” Web site listing all the bio moms trying to deny custody or visitation to their former partners by insisting the partners were never parents? (Ones who try to deny it for legitimate reasons, e.g., if the partner was abusive, are excepted.) Or is this really a matter of closer friends and family putting pressure on the bio mom? Are our collective energies better spent urging more states to adopt the ABA model act? What do you think?