Judge: Lesbian has no parental rights because she didn’t marry partner

[DonViejo]

Source: Associated Press

By Associated Press · Thursday, July 7, 2016

DETROIT (AP) — A woman whose same-sex relationship ended before same-sex marriage became legal doesn’t have parental rights to a child born to her partner in 2008, the Michigan appeals court said Wednesday.

The decision, which comes a year after the U.S. Supreme Court cleared the way for same-sex marriage across the country, will stand as a key precedent in similar disputes in Michigan involving children who were raised by gays and lesbians in relationships that ended.

Michelle Lake and Kerri Putnam were together for 13 years until 2014 but didn’t marry during that time. Lake said she deserves to enjoy the rights that would have been granted to her if they had been married. Putnam gave birth to a boy, now 8, during their relationship, but she no longer allows Lake to see him.

“We simply do not believe it is appropriate for courts to retroactively impose the legal ramifications of marriage onto unmarried couples several years after their relationship has ended,” the appeals court said. “That, in our view, is beyond the role of the judiciary.” The court said Lake has no parental rights under Michigan law because the boy wasn’t born during a marriage.

-snip-

Read more: http://www.lgbtqnation.com/2016/07/judge-lesbian-no-parental-rights-didnt-marry-partner/

[iandhr]

1. Would the same legal standard apply to a heterosexual parents who were not married?

[Dems2002]

2. Apples and Oranges

Not sure -- but even if they did it wouldn't be the same as for the lesbian couple who were barred from getting this piece of paper by a discriminatory law.

[thesquanderer]

9. Well that's the question, whether it would or wouldn't be the same. Court says it is.

See also post #3.

[MADem]

15. The court did address that, if obliquely.

From the article linked in the OP:

Appeals court Judge Douglas Shapiro said there was no evidence that Lake and Putnam would have chosen marriage years ago if it had been legal in Michigan. He said the court might rule differently in a future case if there’s evidence that a same-sex couple clearly wanted to marry before 2015 but couldn’t because of the state’s ban on gay marriage.

[thesquanderer]

6. Yes, that info is in the linked article. (n/t)

[jayfish]

8. If both were biological parents...

I would say no.

[MADem]

10. You would have to dig down into the ruling, but on the surface that seems to be what the court is

saying:

“We simply do not believe it is appropriate for courts to retroactively impose the legal ramifications of marriage onto unmarried couples several years after their relationship has ended,” the appeals court said. “That, in our view, is beyond the role of the judiciary.” The court said Lake has no parental rights under Michigan law because the boy wasn’t born during a marriage.

Granted, if there were a DNA connection between a child and an unmarried father, that would be a different aspect of "Maury" proportions--there would be child support, perhaps requests for visitation and/or custody. That said, assuming that the heterosexual member of any hypothetical relationship was not biologically related to the child, and there was no adoption that occurred during the relationship, and they weren't married, the father figure--per Michigan law (according to the ruling, anyway) -- would be out of luck.

[Yo_Mama]

12. Yes, but the real issue is that this couple COULDN'T get married.

If there is not an adoption or a marriage, the child in question is legally unrelated to the one who did not give birth. Legally.

[MADem]

16. The court also said that no evidence was presented that they wanted to marry....

Appeals court Judge Douglas Shapiro said there was no evidence that Lake and Putnam would have chosen marriage years ago if it had been legal in Michigan. He said the court might rule differently in a future case if there’s evidence that a same-sex couple clearly wanted to marry before 2015 but couldn’t because of the state’s ban on gay marriage.

[Yo_Mama]

19. Yes, I saw that & posted it below. It seems like there is no great option here.

Intuitively one feels that the child has lost by this. But that of course could happen and does in split-ups of heterosexual partners in which the unrelated partner has been a strong presence in the child's life.

[MADem]

21. It's hard to know if the relationship was strong for all those years, or, for that matter, positive.

For the mother of the kid to not want a supposed 'co-parent' to see the child at all is curious. That relationship did not end well, plainly. Many relationships don't, but this seems to have more acrimony than usual. I mean, really--what's the downside of having someone responsible who loves the child have access to them? From a selfish POV, it's a weekend babysitter on occasion.

I have to wonder if there's more going on here than meets the eye. We'll only know if the two clashing parties speak out.

[iandhr]

18. Got it thank you for the explanation.

[happyslug]

29. Yes, if it can be shown the male partner is NOT the father of the child born to the female partner.

And we do have cases where a Woman was NOT deemed to have any rights to the man she had been living with child, when that child was born to another woman.

Now, the law does PRESUME any child of a Married couple is the product of that sexual relationship, but that presumption does NOT extend to NON-MARRIED COUPLES. This has been the law for centuries.

[thesquanderer]

3. Complicated.

The court said Lake has no parental rights under Michigan law because the boy wasn’t born during a marriage. “This is true whether the couple involved is a heterosexual or a same-sex couple,” it said.

Except that the heterosexual couple had the option of getting married, the same-sex couple did not.

But there's no way to go back in time and determine that that same-sex couple would have gotten married if they could, either.

[MADem]

13. They had an unusual and certainly greater burden if they wanted to marry.

They could have married in Canada or Massachusetts, for example -- and some other states were starting in with the Civil Union compromise.

[thesquanderer]

25. MI didn't recognize out-of-state same sex marriage or civil unions until the 2014 court case

but in hindsight, it could have been beneficial for them to have done it anyway, as they would have been able to prove retroactively that that had been their desire/intent all along, and they were merely being foiled by MI law. I don't know if it would have changed the decision, but it might have strengthened their case. But of course they had no way of knowing that then (or even that they wouldn't be together any longer).

[MADem]

26. Precisely- it would have made a difference to the case because it would have

demonstrated intent. The ruling said as much (see the OP link).

Had the plaintiff been able to cough up any "intent/desire to marry" -- even in the form of declarations, letters, whatever, that would have helped her case as well, but she did not do that.

Since we really don't know the true nature of the relationship (it could have been long term but casual and non-exclusive) it's impossible to come to a definitive conclusion. State law is going to have the last word, unless the plaintiff wants to try and take it further.

There's got to be some reason (anger, bitterness, or unfitness as a consequence of some personal issues/substance abuse, e.g.--or a less strong relationship than is being asserted) that the biological mother doesn't want the other woman in the child's life.

We just have no way of knowing unless and until we hear directly from the parties in this case, and understand their perspectives and motivations.

[Nay]

4. I completely agree with this ruling. nt

[Warpy]

5. Total load of crap

One of my friends won a similar case in another state. She was able to document her presence in her son's life from the delivery room until the breakup a few years later. She was very involved in her son's life and the judge agreed that she did indeed have full parental rights. Marriage equality was 30 years away, so the lack of a marriage license didn't figure in to the decision.

[thesquanderer]

7. This is just the kind of thing that can vary a lot from state to state,

even with hetero rights having nothing to do with LGBT.

[MADem]

11. The ruling specifically mentions MICHIGAN law. And this is an appeals court ruling, yes? nt

[Warpy]

14. Nobody has to like it, though

especially since it ignores the parental relationship entirely.

[MADem]

20. If you read the full article, the court actually considered the marriage burden issue.

The fact is that no evidence was presented that they WANTED to marry. They also said they would treat a heterosexual relationship (and I'm assuming they are suggesting a heterosexual relationship where the partner is not related by DNA to the child) the same way:

The court said Lake has no parental rights under Michigan law because the boy wasn’t born during a marriage.

“This is true whether the couple involved is a heterosexual or a same-sex couple,” it said.

Appeals court Judge Douglas Shapiro said there was no evidence that Lake and Putnam would have chosen marriage years ago if it had been legal in Michigan. He said the court might rule differently in a future case if there’s evidence that a same-sex couple clearly wanted to marry before 2015 but couldn’t because of the state’s ban on gay marriage.

My POV is this--I need to know more before I fire up any outrage. If the Michigan courts are applying the law FAIRLY, and the plaintiff didn't present any evidence that the two wanted to marry (which they could have done--with some burden, as I mentioned elsewhere in this thread--over the border in Canada or in MA, for example) then I think the legal footing is pretty firm.

There had to be a rather acrimonious ending to this relationship if the mother of the child does not want the partner near the child. Maybe there's more here than meets the eye, who knows? I would want to know more--I am guessing that one or both parties will speak out eventually on this issue (if they haven't so done, already--I'll have to look around and see).

[Yo_Mama]

17. The law may be different in that state - and laws have changed, esp. with artificial insemination

But:

Appeals court Judge Douglas Shapiro said there was no evidence that Lake and Putnam would have chosen marriage years ago if it had been legal in Michigan. He said the court might rule differently in a future case if there’s evidence that a same-sex couple clearly wanted to marry before 2015 but couldn’t because of the state’s ban on gay marriage.

[lunatica]

22. Cases like these fascinate me as I watch the judicial system try to keep up

As new laws come into effect regarding marriage it's very interesting how the judges decide what will stand after laws have changed regarding very basic things such as rights of individuals. We're in unprecedented times as far as laws which are in effect now because they could possible be in violation of some human rights which were just recently passed by the Supreme Court. Our justice system has no recourse but to evolve.

I can't wait to see what happens when the first clone trials happen and how the judges will uphold existing laws which are suddenly against the law. If the Supreme Court ever grants clones equal rights the judicial system will be replete with chaos.

[olddad56]

23. I was never married to my son's mother, we spilt up when he was 5...

I have always had equal custody and if fact have been the more involved parent his entire life. He is 20 now, and in college, he loves both parents and I will always be the more involved parent.

[MADem]

27. Do you share DNA? Are you the biological father?

DNA would trump everything--you wouldn't have to be married in that case. Biological parents have inherent rights unless a court takes them away. People who serve 'in loco parentis' don't, automatically, anyway.

[Android3.14]

24. Unsatisfactory ruling, but absolutely necessary

Ruling in favor of the former partner would set an unfortunate precedent for gay, straight and poly.

[Blandocyte]

28. Interesting times

God bless us, every one.