Posted on 11/04/2005 11:53:51 AM PST by MooseMan
Court redefines parenthood
By Lornet Turnbull Seattle Times staff reporter
The Washington Supreme Court established what amounts to a new category of parents — one that's the legal equivalent of moms and dads — when it ruled Thursday that a lesbian who was neither the biological nor adoptive parent of a girl she helped raise has co-parenting rights to the child.
The decision, which significantly impacts parenting laws in the state, may also signal the direction the high court will take in deciding a gay-marriage lawsuit pending before it — a prospect that delights same-sex marriage advocates and horrifies opponents.
In the 7-2 decision hailed by gays as an acknowledgement of the complexity of families, the court recognized what it called a "de-facto or psychological parent" under the state's common law as one who "in all respect functions as the child's actual parent."
The attorney for Page Britain, the child's biological mother, warned that the ruling strips away parental authority, setting the stage for any adult who helps raise a child — from roommates to live-in lovers — to make parental claims. He will recommend his client appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, he said.
Writing for the majority, Justice Bobbe J. Bridge said, "In the face of advancing technologies and evolving notions of what comprises a family unit, this case causes us to confront the manner in which our state ... defines the terms 'parents' and 'families.' "
She said neither the U.S. nor state Supreme Court has ever restricted the definition of parent or family by biology. "Today we hold that our common law recognizes the status of de-facto parents and places them in parity with biological and adoptive parents in our state," she wrote.
(Excerpt) Read more at seattletimes.nwsource.com ...
Isn't "making law" the job of the legislature??
Ah yes, the "Peoples Rebuplic of Washington."
Isn't "making law" the job of the legislature??
Actually, the legislature screwed up in the 2000 law that broadens the definition of parents. They left it wide open for the courts to make a ruling like this.
What happens when a child grows up with more than two adults? Are they all parents?
What if the situation were reversed? What if the biological mother wanted to sue the departing "partner" for child support? Would the court have ruled the same way? Or is this yet another decision based on the desire of the adult in question? If you feel like a parent, then you are one.
Not in a legal system based on reality. A child has one mother and one father. Sure, sometimes one or both are not biological, but it should change the basic core structure of family. It takes one man and one woman to make a child. They do not need more than that.
Isn't "making law" the job of the legislature??
-----
Not when you have law-breaking liberal activists on the bench!!! And now, all should appreciate that we need JUDICIAL REFORM in the biggest way.
"Your Honor, on the grounds that I sometimes had dinner over the Olson twins' house back in the 1980s, I consider myself a coparent and I demand an equal share of said twins' earnings."
This is what you get when courts force homosexual acceptance and equivalence.
-----
This disgusting liberal performance is happening all over. Leftist judges, are legislating from the bench, apparently without any accountability, which makes me see red!
We are in serious need of judicial overhaul.
My state court just ruled that gay sex is no more harmful to minors than heterosexual sex, and that the state cannot make a moral judgment on the matter (so much for "consenting adults"). It also ruled that homosexual orientation is set by age 14; so if the kid is unlucky enough to become homosexual prey at that age, TAG --- he's a homosexual that can't be changed. How all knowing of the them. Gee, I didn't know judges were also experts in those areas. They disgust me.
"Your honor, the plaintiff and I spent less than one hour together. I never saw her again, nor did I ever see her child."
"If the plaintiff wants money, she should look to the psychological parent."
Think it'll work?
Actually, the legislature screwed up in the 2000 law that broadens the definition of parents. They left it wide open for the courts to make a ruling like this.
Not in a legal system based on reality. A child has one mother and one father. Sure, sometimes one or both are not biological, but it should change the basic core structure of family. It takes one man and one woman to make a child. They do not need more than that.
What about stepparents? My stepfather was more a father to me than my biological dad, but my stepfather should not have had to adopt me in order to be a parent.
You're talking about an ideal world. But in the real world, sometimes kids end up with more than two valid parents.
Depends on the facts of the case. If the biological mother went around for years, referring to her partner publicly and in front of the child, as the child's parent, I'd side with the court. Otherwise, no one who has not entered into an explicit legal contract for parental rights over a non-biological child, should have a leg to stand on in court.
What if the situation were reversed? What if the biological mother wanted to sue the departing "partner" for child support?
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.