Posted on 02/19/2005 6:24:59 PM PST by Ellesu
INDIANAPOLIS - A lesbian who split with her partner after adopting the woman's biological children must pay child support, the Indiana Court of Appeals has ruled.
The woman adopted her partner's children in 1997. A few years after their breakup, she tried to vacate the adoption. Around the same time, the children's biological mother, who had remarried and divorced a man, filed for child support.
A three-judge panel ruled Wednesday that the woman who adopted the children must contribute to the cost of raising them.
"Whether a parent is a man or a woman, homosexual or heterosexual, or adoptive or biological, in assuming that role, a person also assumes certain responsibilities, obligations, and duties," Judge John G. Baker wrote in a 22-page ruling.
"That person may not simply choose to shed the parental mantle because it becomes inconvenient, seems ill-advised in retrospect, or becomes burdensome because of a deterioration in the relationship with the children's other parent," the decision said.
The ruling is part of a growing and sometimes contradictory body of family law grappling with gay and lesbian relationships.
The appeals court ruled in November that a person may adopt the children of a same-sex partner and retain parental rights, such as visitation privileges, following a breakup. Yet last month, the court found that state law defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman.
Ellen Andersen, a professor at Indiana University-Purdue University at Indianapolis who follows gay rights issues, said Friday that there is tension between the court's rulings.
"The law is progressing, and as happens a lot as laws are reacting to social movement changes, there's a lot of one-step forward, two-step backing," she said.
Wellllll now, isn't this interesting? :)
Sweet. Behavior has consequences.
I sometimes think that allowing gays to marry would be the nastiest thing we could do to them. It certainly would be a growth industry for the lawyers.
excellent. you want to act like a married family, then you take the consequences when you divorce.
Hmmmm, I wonder if her wages will be garnished. :)
HA, HA, HA, HA! FemiNazis get a taste of my medicine! I love it!
The same way society disapproves of trophy wives is the same way society ought to disapprove of gays adopting children.
Exactly. They want to be able to marry, but not pay alimony in a divorce, they want to adopt, but not have to pay child support. Can't have it both ways.
What is contradictory? Adoption has nothing to do with marriage. That woman signed a legal contract when she adopted the children. Breaking up with her "lover" has nothing to do with the children, she still has that legal obligation to those kids. She will have to pay child support for them until they either reach 18 or get out of school (if they decide to attend university) and she will also have to contribute toward their higher education should they so decide.
The term the homosexual use is "second parent" adoption. IOW recreational sex partner adoption.
Unlike normal adoption, these children are NEVER going to have a normal life. Their imprisonment in an alternative lifesyle of their mother is open for all to see.
Under no circumstance can anyone argue these are "in the best interest of the child".
Fortunatly, since the 11th upheld preventing homosexuals adopting children more states have rumbled about adopting a ban.
A legal adoption makes you a legal parent with a legal obligation to support your legal children.
You can't shed children like you do lovers.
It's a shame they allow these adoptions given the instablility of the relationships.
I thought the homos said that you can't stop being a homo. Why did the homos lie to me?
If it's true that Indiana is one of those states, then I'd agree that there is no inconsistency in the rulings. That's not the impression I get from the article, though. If Indiana had such a law, then I think the article would have stated just that, instead of saying that an appeals court had to rule that same-sex partners can adopt.
I don't see the contradiction. If you adopt a child you have an obligation to the child. That has nothing to do with marriage, same sex or not.
Lesbians think that they can end their commitment to their adopted children just as fast and as cleanly as they end their "partnerships". But being lesbian does not mean you don't have parental responsibilities.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.