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

[waggy]

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.

that would put a major damper on adoption. If you have a risk of losing the kid you raised?

 

[Wreckem]

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.

If they don't go through proper legal channels as outline by state statute, yes they can. If they go through proper channels they cannot be liable for child support.

If you don't go through proper channels you are liable because parties cannot contract the right of child support away.

 

[emperus]

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).

That point was an aside to an argument Niehelm was trying to make. It has nothing to do with this case, as was niehelms argument.

 

[emperus]

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.

There lies my problem. You are relying on the court to what nature didn't naturally. The kid would not be just urs as hers as none of ur DNA belongs to that child. The child is hers and the donors. The court may assign you responsibility but the child still is not biologically yours. Again, I am making a pure argument her. I am for legal adoption.

But thanks for the synopsis. Wow they went after the sperm donor for support? I really have to read this case.

 

[emperus]

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.

This is the point I've been trying to make. Though I would go a step further and give more deferential treatment to the biological parents in terms of custody.

 

[waggy]

This is the point I've been trying to make. Though I would go a step further and give more deferential treatment to the biological parents in terms of custody.

fuck no.


that would through EVERY adoption in chaos. Not every biological parent should have ANY rights

 

[nehalem256]

This is the point I've been trying to make. Though I would go a step further and give more deferential treatment to the biological parents in terms of custody.

It is suppose to be about the best interest of the child. Not the best interest o the biological parent(s).

If you don't want to give non-biological adults parental rights don't sign agreements giving them those rights. It is pretty simple.

The fact that the woman wanted to take her children away from an adult they likely regarded as a parent reflects very poorly on her as a mother.

 

[IBMer]

People like to attach some mystical, fairy tail connection between biological parents and their children. This leads to mothers who put their children up for adoption changing their mind later and being able to get their children back or situations like in the OP. If someone is given parental rights, biology shouldn't suddenly be able to abolish those rights or be given some sort of higher consideration.

 

[emperus]

People like to attach some mystical, fairy tail connection between biological parents and their children. This leads to mothers who put their children up for adoption changing their mind later and being able to get their children back or situations like in the OP. If someone is given parental rights, biology shouldn't suddenly be able to abolish those rights or be given some sort of higher consideration.

Mythical Fairy tail connection? You mean like that of DNA? The question becomes who give parental rights? I would argue that the person that gave the child life should have that say. I understand that we want the welfare of the child but I think that bar has to be high.

I've never argued parents who put their child up for adoption should have that right. The parent abdicated that right the moment they decided to give their child up. But in other cases. The bar "for the benefit of the child" should be high.

 

[waggy]

People like to attach some mystical, fairy tail connection between biological parents and their children. This leads to mothers who put their children up for adoption changing their mind later and being able to get their children back or situations like in the OP. If someone is given parental rights, biology shouldn't suddenly be able to abolish those rights or be given some sort of higher consideration.

agreed.

Not every parent is fit to raise kids, not every parent WANTS to raise kids.

IF you have a mother who is addicted to drugs and the child is taken away and adopted. Should that mother decide years latter get custody after another family raised the child? take the child away from the family that loved and raised them? just because the "mother" happens to be the dna mother.

 

[emperus]

fuck no.


that would through EVERY adoption in chaos. Not every biological parent should have ANY rights

If you read this thread, I never argued this in terms of abortion.

 

[nehalem256]

Mythical Fairy tail connection? You mean like that of DNA? The question becomes who give parental rights? I would argue that the person that gave the child life should have that say. I understand that we want the welfare of the child but I think that bar has to be high.

I've never argued parents who put their child up for adoption should have that right. The parent abdicated that right the moment they decided to give their child up. But in other cases. The bar "for the benefit of the child" should be high.

And in this case the court agrees with you.

They just don't allow take-backs.

 

[waggy]

If you read this thread, I never argued this in terms of abortion.

maybe you should read the thread. I have NEVER talked about abortion.

 

[IBMer]

Mythical Fairy tail connection? You mean like that of DNA? The question becomes who give parental rights? I would argue that the person that gave the child life should have that say. I understand that we want the welfare of the child but I think that bar has to be high.

I've never argued parents who put their child up for adoption should have that right. The parent abdicated that right the moment they decided to give their child up. But in other cases. The bar "for the benefit of the child" should be high.

"Gave them life". The parents didn't magically put the spark of life in an wooden doll. Of course there has to be a basic starting point of parental rights which will lay with the biological parents, but that doesn't mean they can't change. If they are changed then legally they should be considered to supersede any biological link the child may have.

 

[emperus]

maybe you should read the thread. I have NEVER talked about abortion.

I meant adoption.

 

[emperus]

"Gave them life". The parents didn't magically put the spark of life in an wooden doll. Of course there has to be a basic starting point of parental rights which will lay with the biological parents, but that doesn't mean they can't change. If they are changed then legally they should be considered to supersede any biological link the child may have.

No, but the parents did something more amazing. Their genes combined to create life, then that life grew. So, yes, there is more than a small connection between parents and child.