I wrote yesterday about the Utah court that just denied parenting rights to non-bio mom Gena Edvalson. The court said the parenting contract she had signed with her former partner Jana Dickson “directly offends the state’s public policy that parents retain the fundamental right to exercise the primary control over the care and supervision of their children.” Dickson’s lawyer, you may recall, is connected with the ultra-conservative Alliance Defense Fund.
After I wrote the piece, the Salt Lake Tribune did an article about the case. Interestingly, they report: “An attorney who defends parents in abuse, neglect and custody cases, Dickson said she is a ‘stronger believer than ever’ in the right of lesbians to marry and adopt—if the biological mom wants her partner to do so.”
Nope. Sorry. Any same-sex couple that decides to become parents together must do so with an understanding of equality between the partners. Going into parenthood with the belief that the biological parent somehow has more rights will lead to inequalities in the relationship and trouble down the road. Yes, the law often gives the biological parent the upper hand. The law also often does not recognize the parents’ relationship with each other. That doesn’t mean we aren’t free to define our own relationships to our partners and children with more equality than the law provides. That’s called integrity.
In my last appeal, the ex tried to claim the same thing – that it was her Constitutional right to determine who our child spends time with since she is the biological parent – a right which she claimed superses a non-biological parent’s right to be with their child. This was her second attempt at this claim on appeal – she had originally made this claim in our first appeal years before – to which the Court had given her a rather succinct response at the time, saying that pressing her Constitutional rights in this manner was inappropriate and that if she wanted to make that claim, she was most likely also infringing upon my Constitutional rights, as well as our child’s. But as I mentioned previously, despite this response, she tried it again in our latest appeal. This time the Court of Appeal gave her a thorough answer about HOW allowing one parent’s rights to dominate another parent’s rights would be completely asinine. I found it extremely interesting that Dickson would now be claiming the same thing. Someone should probably let her know that this claim has been ruled on at least once now – and failed.