Posted on 08/25/2004 9:50:08 AM PDT by PinnedAndRecessed
BOSTON - A woman who agreed to have a child with her lesbian partner, but split up with the mother before the baby's birth, cannot be forced to pay child support, the state's highest court ruled Wednesday.
The split ruling by the Supreme Judicial Court - which legalized gay marriage in a landmark ruling last year - comes in the case of a Hampshire County lesbian couple, identified in court documents as "T.F." and "B.L.," who lived together from 1996 to 2000.
B.L. at first resisted T.F.'s wishes to have a child, but later changed her mind.
The couple broke up after T.F. got pregnant by artificial insemination. After the baby was born, T.F. sued her former partner for child support. A Probate and Family Court judge turned to the state Appeals Court, which in turned passed the case the case up to the Supreme Judicial Court.
Associate Justice Judith A. Cowin wrote that the informal agreement between the two women to have a child together did not constitute an enforceable contract, and B.L. can't be forced to pay child support.
(Excerpt) Read more at start.earthlink.net ...
Ah ... so gays want the right to marry ... the right to adopt children ... but shouldn't be required to pay for kids they helped bring into the world.
I bet they track down the sperm donor and make him pay
the lesbos dont want equal treatment after all...hmmm
This I do know --- SOMEONE is going to pay, and it won't be the state.
BAD, Bad, bad ruling.
And the liberal agenda continues: do what you want, we'll make certain you don't have to deal with the consequences...
everyone knows very well, that if this was a man who broke away he would definately be held finacially responsible...
I just want things one way or the other.....this picking and choosing of which laws to follow makes me so angry.....
Dykes don't have to pay, but men who can prove through DNA tests that a kid is not their's have to pay.
This brings up a new twist in marriage law; if non-reproductive parents want children, they must first apply for a production permit with the state which sets forth financial responsibility in the event of divorce or death or illness of one partner.
So the court admits there is a difference after all.
This judge's name needs to be placed next to the word "Hypocrite" in Webster's. Based on case law now, there's a whole lotta people who should contact their attorneys.
I wonder. What if they split up after the baby was born?
Seems to me the judge's ruling would be the same. Now, there's a double standard.
"I bet they track down the sperm donor and make him pay "...
...this has actually happened before.
What these people need to realize, and us people need to enforce, is that they cannot just get their "rights" and not have to deal with the consequences of their decisions. What is the Mass. Supreme court doing? This has got to be one of the most blatant homo. agenda and idiotic sets of rulings I have ever seen! Rediculous!
Some animals are more equal than others.
"BAD, Bad, bad ruling."
With many more to follow. Massachusetts' courts now must attempt to build a firm edifice on the quicksand of bad law, thanks to their highest court. Only a matter of time before some truly bizarre decisions follow.
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.