KS S.C, Rules Non-Biological Lesbian Mother Has Same Parenting Rights as Birth Mother

[emperus]

I think the case may have turned on the agreement they signed. But I'm somewhat troubled by this esp. reading the comments in the article.

In what's being billed as a benchmark Kansas legal victory, a non-biological lesbian mother has been granted the same parental rights as the biological mother of two children.
The Associated Press reports that Kelly Goudschaal limited her ex-partner Marci Frazier's visitations to their two children after the pair split. Meanwhile, Frazier sought to enforce a parenting agreement signed by both women when they were still together, which stated that Frazier's "relationship with the children should be protected and promoted,'' and that the pair had vowed "to jointly and equally share parental responsibility" when they were still together, according to the report

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/...-lesbian-custody-_n_2760179.html#closeOverlay

 

[waggy]

if the biolagical mother signed it she should abide by it.

Also if a man acts as a father he can (and is) held as the father both financially and emotionally.

 

[Jimzz]

I agree with it; but it goes both ways. If you want them to be your children you also have to help raise/pay for them.

 

[emperus]

if the biolagical mother signed it she should abide by it.

Also if a man acts as a father he can (and is) held as the father both financially and emotionally.

I guess I believe a biological parent (as long as they are acting responsibly) has the ultimate veto over who is or isn't in their child's lives.

It just raises a lot of ethical questions for me. Like when it's legal or ethical to sign your parental rights over to someone else.

It just seems wrong to give someone who is not a biological parent equal authority over that child.

 

[sunzt]

I guess I believe a biological parent (as long as they are acting responsibly) has the ultimate veto over who is or isn't in their child's lives.

It just raises a lot of ethical questions for me. Like when it's legal or ethical to sign your parental rights over to someone else.

It just seems wrong to give someone who is not a biological parent equal authority over that child.

Sperm donors.....

If i'm donating my dudes, i don't wanna be responsible for hundreds of offspring...

 

[nehalem256]

I guess I believe a biological parent (as long as they are acting responsibly) has the ultimate veto over who is or isn't in their child's lives.

It just raises a lot of ethical questions for me. Like when it's legal or ethical to sign your parental rights over to someone else.

This would seem to raise questions about the ethics of adoption.

Which is in essence what the biological mother did. She had a child without a father and then gave the rights of the "father" to her lesbian partner.

Then when things went badly she wanted backsies on her agreement.

It just seems wrong to give someone who is not a biological parent equal authority over that child.

I think denying the children a father by having the children through artificial insemination was wrong.

And all further problems stem from that.

 

[SheHateMe]

I want your love and I want your revenge you and me can make a bad romance....

I think denying the children a father by having the children through artificial insemination was wrong.

And all further problems stem from that.

Good thing nobody is trying to live the way you want them to.

 

[waggy]

I guess I believe a biological parent (as long as they are acting responsibly) has the ultimate veto over who is or isn't in their child's lives.

It just raises a lot of ethical questions for me. Like when it's legal or ethical to sign your parental rights over to someone else.

It just seems wrong to give someone who is not a biological parent equal authority over that child.

that would fuck over a LOT of women in the US. not to mention stop adoptions in it's tracks.

Sperm donors.....

If i'm donating my dudes, i don't wanna be responsible for hundreds of offspring...

sadly sperm donors have been found liable for child support.

 

[nehalem256]

Good thing nobody is trying to live the way you want them to.

Yeah. How dare I want children to have a mother and a father.

Not to mention in avoids situations like this.

 

[emperus]

that would fuck over a LOT of women in the US. not to mention stop adoptions in it's tracks.



sadly sperm donors have been found liable for child support.

I didn't read the case. But it seems like they drafted the contract themselves. I'm trying to figure this out. I believe in adoption. But something about this smells.

I believe in legally absolving yourself of parental responsibilities (i.e sperm donations, adoption). For a parent who doesn't want to parent would be an unfit parent in my book. But in the case of a parent not totally abducting that right. I just don't see how any court can say that their seed isn't theirs to parent as they see fit.

 

[nehalem256]

I didn't read the case. But it seems like they drafted the contract themselves. I'm trying to figure this out. I believe in adoption. But something about this smells.

I believe in legally absolving yourself of parental responsibilities (i.e sperm donations, adoption). For a parent who doesn't want to parent would be an unfit parent in my book. But in the case of a parent not totally abducting that right. I just don't see how any court can say that their seed isn't theirs to parent as they see fit.

How is this any different than essentially a reverse sperm donation?

If a woman can deny a child a parent. Why can she not then give the child a new one?

 

[SheHateMe]

Yeah. How dare I want children to have a mother and a father.

Not to mention in avoids situations like this.

Right because children with a mother and father have never been in the middle of a custody battle..

 

[Thump553]

Tip to the OP: to avoid wasting your time or concern, NEVER EVER rely on a news article for an accurate summary of a court decision. Always look up and read the original decision-they are public domain and almost always readily available.

Reporters generally do horrendous jobs of getting decisions right. They have very limited time and frequently are too lazy themselves to read the decision, relying instead on what the court or counsel involved in the case tells them.

 

[emperus]

Tip to the OP: to avoid wasting your time or concern, NEVER EVER rely on a news article for an accurate summary of a court decision. Always look up and read the original decision-they are public domain and almost always readily available.

Reporters generally do horrendous jobs of getting decisions right. They have very limited time and frequently are too lazy themselves to read the decision, relying instead on what the court or counsel involved in the case tells them.

I agree. As a rule of thumb, I generally do. Didn't have time today to find and read the ruling. Part of the reason I posted it assuming others would ferret it out and if I missed a detail point it out. I think the only mitigating factor would be how they reached the agreement they signed. But later on, I'll check out the ruling.

 

[emperus]

How is this any different than essentially a reverse sperm donation?

If a woman can deny a child a parent. Why can she not then give the child a new one?

I'm confused about what your arguing and how it pertains to my post which you quoted.

 

[nehalem256]

I'm confused about what your arguing and how it pertains to my post which you quoted.

I didn't read the case. But it seems like they drafted the contract themselves. I'm trying to figure this out. I believe in adoption. But something about this smells.

I believe in legally absolving yourself of parental responsibilities (i.e sperm donations, adoption). For a parent who doesn't want to parent would be an unfit parent in my book. But in the case of a parent not totally abducting that right. I just don't see how any court can say that their seed isn't theirs to parent as they see fit.

You appear to have no problems with a woman denying her children a parent by having them through sperm donation.

So why do you have a problem with the same woman giving her children a parent essentially through a legal agreement?

Assuming her lesbian partner is a fit parent. Isn't the act of denying your children a 2nd parent worse than giving them one?

 

[Paladin3]

I think this particular ruling was about doing what was best for the kids, not any kind of gender equity.

Gender and sexual orientation aside, you have two parents and children who were 5 and 3 years old at the time of the split. Unless the non-bio mom was an unfit parent, you can't just remove her from the kids lives and not expect damage to be done.

Once you step up and establish yourself as a parent in a child's life, that bond shouldn't be broken just because you aren't technically blood.

In the end, people should be more careful about who they choose to have kids and parent them with. Once that decision is made it should be followed through until the kids are grown unless there is proven abuse.

Those two women may not love each other anymore, but I'm sure the kids still love and need them both.

 

[emperus]

You appear to have no problems with a woman denying her children a parent by having them through sperm donation.

So why do you have a problem with the same woman giving her children a parent essentially through a legal agreement?

Assuming her lesbian partner is a fit parent. Isn't the act of denying your children a 2nd parent worse than giving them one?

I don't follow your argument. The man chose to exclude himself from the child's life by deciding to be a sperm donor. So he abducted his right as a parent and thus to make those decisions. I don't believe this woman has ever abdicated that responsibility.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

I don't follow your argument. The man chose to exclude himself from the child's life by deciding to be a sperm donor. So he abducted his right as a parent and thus to make those decisions. I don't believe this woman has ever abdicated that responsibility.

How is that relevant to this case? Two women agree to have children together. One of them gets artificially inseminated and gives birth and both act as mothers to the children via a signed contract they entered into together. The relationship goes sour and the biological parent tries to prevent all visitation to the non-biological parent. The courts say, "whoa, you can't do that, you had a contract that stipulated both of you were the parents and she has the same rights as you do." No one is trying to take away the rights of the biological mother, they're making the case that she shouldn't have the sole right to custody given their earlier agreement. It does seem like it would be in the best interests of the children to be allowed to see both their parents (barring any sort of abuse or mistreatment of course).

 

[nehalem256]

I don't follow your argument. The man chose to exclude himself from the child's life by deciding to be a sperm donor. So he abducted his right as a parent and thus to make those decisions. I don't believe this woman has ever abdicated that responsibility.

She signed an agreement acknowledging her lesbian partner as a co-parent.

Why is that bad? When at the same time she decided to have a child through a method that would deny it a father?

 

[Zorba]

I didn't read the case. But it seems like they drafted the contract themselves. I'm trying to figure this out. I believe in adoption. But something about this smells.

I believe in legally absolving yourself of parental responsibilities (i.e sperm donations, adoption). For a parent who doesn't want to parent would be an unfit parent in my book. But in the case of a parent not totally abducting that right. I just don't see how any court can say that their seed isn't theirs to parent as they see fit.

Here is what happened, the two were a couple, the asked for a sperm donor on Craigslist. A guy offer to donate sperm to the couple. Years later they split up and the state went after the sperm donor for child support.

I don't see how this is any different than if my wife got artificially inseminated from a sperm donor. That kid would be just as much mine as her's and would be 0% the sperm donors. It would be different if there was no marriage (which there wasn't in this cause) and no agreement. But they were effectively common lawed and choose to have and raise kids together.

 

[waggy]

I think this particular ruling was about doing what was best for the kids, not any kind of gender equity.

Gender and sexual orientation aside, you have two parents and children who were 5 and 3 years old at the time of the split. Unless the non-bio mom was an unfit parent, you can't just remove her from the kids lives and not expect damage to be done.

Once you step up and establish yourself as a parent in a child's life, that bond shouldn't be broken just because you aren't technically blood.

In the end, people should be more careful about who they choose to have kids and parent them with. Once that decision is made it should be followed through until the kids are grown unless there is proven abuse.

Those two women may not love each other anymore, but I'm sure the kids still love and need them both.

agreed. also if you said the women can't be part of the childrens life then that has other consequences. Now men who married a women with kids do not have to pay child support (wich they do now).


I don't see the courts doing that. far to risky

 

[zinfamous]

I guess I believe a biological parent (as long as they are acting responsibly) has the ultimate veto over who is or isn't in their child's lives.

It just raises a lot of ethical questions for me. Like when it's legal or ethical to sign your parental rights over to someone else.

It just seems wrong to give someone who is not a biological parent equal authority over that child.

so Adoptive parents are now "second-class parents?"

Without a law like this, you have the potential of a biological mother showing up out of nowhere when your adopted kid is 16, having been raised by you for 15 years, and demanding legal rights that supersede your own. I'm not comfortable with that.

 

[werepossum]

As a rule, I think equal interest in children should be limited to biological parenting and parenting by marriage and adoption, not extraneous agreements signed. Does a mother even have the right to assign parenting rights for her children without a court involved? However, most states do not have same sex marriage; in that situation, I can see formalizing such informal agreements which sought to get around this limitation, to the extent it is judged to be in the individual child's best interests. It apparently was their intent to make a marriage.

 

[Wreckem]

As a rule, I think equal interest in children should be limited to biological parenting and parenting by marriage and adoption, not extraneous agreements signed. Does a mother even have the right to assign parenting rights for her children without a court involved? However, most states do not have same sex marriage; in that situation, I can see formalizing such informal agreements which sought to get around this limitation, to the extent it is judged to be in the individual child's best interests. It apparently was their intent to make a marriage.

The standard for custody is always the best interest of the CHILDREN.

Is it in the best interest of the child to allow one parent to cut off contact with the other parent, when the cutoff parent had a parent-child relationship with the children from birth.

Absolutely not. The court reached the appropriate conclusion, with or without the parenting agreement. And yes, the parenting agreement is valid and enforceable in most states, so long as it is in the best interests of the children.