New type of custody fight - 2 women argue visitation rights

DANBURY — Nancy Lavoie and her girlfriend Sandy MacIntyre began living together in Danbury in 1993. Like many committed couples, they decided to start a family. After much discussion, they decided that MacIntyre would try to get pregnant through artificial insemination.

First came a boy, in 1997, and two years later, they had a daughter. By all accounts the children are healthy, happy and well-adjusted.

But although the children thrived, the couple’s relationship came apart. At some point after they broke up in 2001, MacIntyre banned Lavoie from the children’s lives.

So Lavoie took her former girlfriend to Superior Court, claiming the two children, aged 5 and 3, have suffered since MacIntyre stopped her from seeing them. At a temporary visitation hearing Thursday, Lavoie’s lawyer tried to show why she should be allowed to see the children.

In one way, it was a typical hearing, one of hundreds argued in court each year by couples who have split and cannot agree on visitation of the children.

But this hearing reflects a trend that the courts are being forced to deal with more often, as same-sex couples cope with some of the same issues that married couples face.

At the end of the hearing, Superior Court Judge Joseph Doherty asked the women’s lawyers to file briefs and said he will make a decision after reading them.

Lavoie’s lawyer, Maureen Murphy of New Haven, who specializes in cases like this, called a child psychiatrist to the witness stand Thursday to comment about how this disruption in the "family unit” is harmful to the children.

Dr. Stephen Herman, who practices in Danbury and New York City, said given the circumstances of this case, "it’s very likely” that the children will suffer emotional damage if they aren’t allowed to see the other parent. "There’s no doubt in my mind, if those are the true facts.”

In the lawsuit, Lavoie claims that the women shared the cost of the insemination, and that the sperm donor was the same person for both children. Lavoie also says that the couple shared equally in the "day to day” parenting responsibilities.

When Lavoie moved out in January 2001 because of "irreconcilable differences,” the children knew her as "momma.” She intended to remain a parent.

But she had not adopted the children, even though Connecticut is one of the few states that allows so-called "second-parent” adoptions.

For a while after Lavoie moved out, MacIntyre allowed her to see the children. Lavoie says she also supported them financially, paying $100 weekly for day care.

But in June 2001, problems developed. MacIntyre refused to allow Lavoie to take the children on a plane to Colorado on vacation. Ever since then, Lavoie claims, MacIntyre has repeatedly refused to allow her regular visits with the children.

Herman testified that denying the children a chance to see Lavoie "is inviting psychological disaster.”

"They know they have two parents,” Herman said, and they are probably wondering where the other parent is and why they can’t see her.

Herman said the only way he would recommend "non-contact” is if a parent was seriously ill or abusive.

MacIntyre’s lawyer, David Ball of Danbury, questioned his client about her background and whether she was fit to be a parent. She testified she has never been investigated by the Department of Children and Families, has no mental health issues and does not use drugs.

She said she made the decision to prevent her former lover from seeing the children after much thought.

"Based on my children’s behavior, I thought it was in the children’s best interest to stop visitation with Nancy Lavoie,” MacIntyre said.

"Have you noticed any negative impact on the kids since she stopped seeing them?” Ball asked.

Ball says simply that state law is on his client’s side because she is the biological parent. If Lavoie had adopted the children, she would have had more say in whether she could see them, he said.

Connecticut is one of three states that allows "second parent adoptions,” in which the non-biological parent who is part of a committed relationship is allowed to adopt his or her lover’s children. California and Vermont are the other two.

Because there was no adoption, Ball said, his client has a right to raise the children the way she wants. She does not have to defer to Lavoie.

"The real issue here is governmental involvement in family. Why should the federal government dictate, through the courts, who she (MacIntyre) should permit her children to see?” Ball asked.

Although this case highlights one of the problems associated with same-sex parenting, Jubi Headley, the director of communications for the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force in Washington, D.C., points out that lesbians and gays in Connecticut have more rights than their counterparts in most other states because they are allowed to adopt.

"We would absolutely want the other states to follow suit,” Headley said. "In 47 states, one parent is the biological parent and the other person lives in the house.”

She has no standing. She's not biologically related nor was there a marriage between the two (Thank God). If she had adopted the children she might have a case. I saw a "Family Law" episode similar to this case. And that was the first and the last time I'll ever watch that program. In that case it was two children adopted by a gay man who was leaving his partner. Because he decided that he was going to pursue a heterosexual livestyle and marry a woman that he had been seeing. He also didn't want his previous partner seeing the kids, he thought it would be a bad influence. It's unbelievable the amount of gay politically correct commentary and viewpoints they were able to squeeze into one hourlong program. I only list the propaganda the program managed to spewout because people actually believe this stuff. Otherwise, their response would've been the same as mine, "Oh, give me a break" and they'd stop watching this kind of crap. In one scene, one of the lawyers was worried about taking the case because his view was that, "I always thought that it was better for the child to have a mother." His co-counsels response was "you only need a woman if you're breastfeeding a child." In another situation they put the son on witness stand who testified he didn't want father's ex-partner parcipating in is life because the homosexual influence might make him into a homosexual, and of course they set it up so child wasn't able to profess what his sexual orientation was, but you got the impression the kid was leaning toward homosexuality, and was therefore afraid. Of course one the attourneys(the one who felt the unessential requirement of a Mother) in rebuttal to some argument made the statement that "Hasn't sexual orientation been scientifically proven to be immutable." Finally the clincher was; the judge, a Reagan appointment of all things, decided the children should go to the jilted partner because unlike the father he was certain of his sexual orientation and would therefore make a better parent. The quotes are not exact; but close enough.

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.