West Virginia Court redefines family, grants parental rights to lesbian partner

Catholic News Agency ^ | June 22, 2005

[NYer]

Tupelo, MS, Jun. 22, 2005 (CNA) - A West Virginia court decision that has redefined the term “parent” has “demonstrated the lethal effects of judicial activism on the nuclear family,” said Stephen Crampton, chief counsel for the American Family Association Center for Law & Policy.

On June 17, the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals redefined what a parent is by declaring a lesbian partner the “psychological parent” of her deceased lover’s young child.

In Tina B. v. Paul S,, the court removed custody of the child from his maternal grandparents and gave it to the lesbian partner, Tina B.

“While the court pretended to limit itself to interpreting the laws passed by the legislature, in reality it made law and acted as a superlegislature,” Crampton stated.

“West Virginia’s creation of a new ‘right’ for a same-sex partner to obtain custody of her deceased lover’s child without any written agreement, a Will, or any attempt at adoption is but a stepping stone to recognition of same-sex marriage,” Crampton warned.

The American Family Association had filed an amicus brief on behalf of two legislators in the case.

[NYer]

Catholic Ping - Please freepmail me if you want on/off this list

[NYer]

Ping!

[wideawake]

No worries.

I've decided that I am the psychological superior court to the WV Court of Appeals and I'm vacating the ruling.

See! It's just that easy.

[LIConFem]

"“While the court pretended to limit itself to interpreting the laws passed by the legislature, in reality it made law and acted as a superlegislature,” Crampton stated"

No, it didn't. And neither did the court redefine "parent", or grant "special rights" to anyone. Whether you like the decision or not, all the court did was give custody of a child to one of the people who's been raising him/her. Right or wrong, it's well within the purview of the court to make such decisions.

[Dawgreg]

I shouldn't be suprised. What in the heck is this country coming to?

[mlc9852]

In West Virginia??? We really are in trouble now. The homosexual agenda marches on unabated, thanks to our law-making judges.

[Fan_Of_Ingraham]

Whether you like the decision or not, all the court did was give custody of a child to one of the people who's been raising him/her.

Are you kidding me?    If no "special rights" were granted, then why did the court feel it necessary to refer to this LESBIEN LOVER as the "psycological" parent?

For crying out loud. Which do you think is a better environment in which to raise this child, a two-parent household or a single "psychological" parent household. This ruling has POLITICAL AGENDA written all over it.

[LIConFem]

"For crying out loud. Which do you think is a better environment in which to raise this child, a two-parent household or a single "psychological" parent household. This ruling has POLITICAL AGENDA written all over it."

What I think about this lesbian getting custody of the child is beside the point. My post challenged the assertion that the court engaged in judicial activism. It didn't, and neither is this some landmark, precedent-setting decision. It's happened before, not just with lesbian/gay "parents" but unwed hetero parents as well.

There are plenty of instances of judicial activism for us to rant and rave about. We don't need to invent more. Decry the decision, yes. But don't make it something it isn't.

[lilylangtree]

Another win for the perverted queer community.

[pabianice]

Absolutely

[LIConFem]

Forgot to answer one of your questions...

"Are you kidding me? If no "special rights" were granted, then why did the court feel it necessary to refer to this LESBIEN LOVER as the "psycological" parent? "

I don't know. You'd have to ask the judge. But it's possible that the court used that language to illustrate its belief that the child had more of an attachment to the lesbian than to the child's grandparents. But that's just a guess.

But again, my posts aren't a defense of the decision. They're a challenge to the assertion that the court acted outside its purview.

[Fan_Of_Ingraham]

What I think about this lesbian getting custody of the child is beside the point. My post challenged the assertion that the court engaged in judicial activism. It didn't, and neither is this some landmark, precedent-setting decision. It's happened before, not just with lesbian/gay "parents" but unwed hetero parents as well.

This IS Judicial activism. Were there any records to show that this lesbian adopted the child? Were there any records to show that the deceased wanted the child raised by this lesbian?

I speak from experience here. The precedent was set or at least followed when my mother died and custody was granted to my biological father, rather than my step-father. Why? Because my step-father was not a blood relative. Although they both wanted to raise me and could equally provide a nurturing environment, the logical choice was my DAD. And I don't regret that decision.

That is the way things ought to be.

This is Judicial Activism 101.

[dsc]

"What I think about this lesbian getting custody of the child is beside the point."

Actually, it's not. What we the people think is the point. And we have always, until just yesterday, historically speaking, thought that a person should not be awarded custody of a child unless they were fit to be a parent.

We have also thought that blood is thicker than water, or, in this case, thicker than rug munching, and so have tended to prefer blood relatives over live-in lust objects.

Because the mother suffered from a psycho-sexual disorder, she lived together with another sufferer, an accomplice in abomination. That alone would have been, should have been, sufficient to have the blood mother declared an unfit parent.

That the judge chose to deliver that poor child into the hands of that accomplice-in-abomination instead of blood relatives who are fit to raise a child is contrary to every principle upon which we the people have ordered our society.

I'll bet dollars to doughnuts that legal research would show it contrary to a long chain of precedent in case law, as well as statutory requirements for fitness of foster parents.

Delivering a child into the hands of a deviant when the law requires that the child be protected from deviants is judicial activism of the worst kind.

[LIConFem]

"This IS Judicial activism"

In order for it to be judicial activism, the court would have had to ignore state law in their decision. If they didn't, then this is simply a bad decision.

"Although they both wanted to raise me and could equally provide a nurturing environment, the logical choice was my DAD. And I don't regret that decision.

That is the way things ought to be. "

I hope you weren't expecting an argument from me on this. If you were, I'm sorry, but I can't oblige.

[LIConFem]

"I'll bet dollars to doughnuts that legal research would show it contrary to a long chain of precedent in case law, as well as statutory requirements for fitness of foster parents. "

The "I'll bet" part of your statement wouldn't hold up in court. And once again, unless the court ignored state law, this wasn't judicial activism.

As for the rest of your post, you don't have to convince me that this wasn't a good decision. My posts addressed the legality of the decision, not the morality of it.

[Machines Are Us]

Actually here: http://www.state.wv.us/wvsca/docs/spring05/31855.htm

It is much more informative than the hack of an article posted.

[highball]

That alone would have been, should have been, sufficient to have the blood mother declared an unfit parent.

Now you've lost me. I cannot, will not, condone taking children away from a homosexual parent on that basis alone.

Frankly, it's abhorent to anyone who truly loves liberty. More big government in a "conservative" shroud.

[LIConFem]

Thanks much. I'll read it later.

[The Old Hoosier]

Could be bad news for Robert Byrd.