California courts redefining meaning of parent

Reply Wed 21 Dec, 2011 10:19 am
December 21, 2011
California courts redefining meaning of parent
Bee Hudson Sangree - McClatchy Newspapers

Even as the definition of family in America expands and shifts, California courts are trying to keep pace by redefining whom the law regards as parents.

Judges have moved beyond traditional notions of biology and adoption and have assigned parental rights to adults with no genetic or legal ties to kids.

In a recent Sacramento case, an appeals court said a woman who never adopted her ex-girlfriend's children was nevertheless their parent because she acted like one – providing for them financially, cleaning up after them when they got sick, and volunteering at their school.

"We're redefining what constitutes a family," said McGeorge School of Law Professor Larry Levine, an expert on sexual orientation and the law. "It's a whole new way of thinking about this."

In the Dec. 9 ruling, the Sacramento-based 3rd District Court of Appeal said the woman had a good reason for not adopting the children. She was a colonel in the Air Force Reserve and was afraid of being expelled from the military if she violated the "don't ask, don't tell" policy in force at the time.

The controversial policy, which began in 1993 and ended in September, barred openly gay men or lesbians from serving in the military. Had the woman been open about her sexual orientation by forming a domestic partnership or adopting her girlfriend's children, it might have ended her military career.

The court referred to the woman and her former partner only by their initials: S.Y. and S.B. The Bee agreed to do the same to protect the privacy of the children."It was never even something we discussed about me participating in the adoption or formalizing the relationship," S.Y. said in an interview. "It was just a given because of 'don't ask, don't tell.' When it's something you can't do, you don't go there."

S.B. declined through her attorney to comment on the case.Her lawyer, Elizabeth Niemi, said S.B. always planned to be the children's sole parent. She hadn't wanted S.Y. to jointly adopt the children, and S.Y. acknowledged that was true in trial testimony, she said. "Neither party ever intended for S.Y. to have parental rights or obligations," Niemi said.

But the court said the adoptive mother's intentions weren't the deciding factor."Whether S.B intended for S.Y. to obtain legal rights with respect to the children is irrelevant where, as here, S.B. allowed and encouraged S.Y. to function as the children's second parent from birth, and S.Y. openly embraced the rights and obligations of being a parent," wrote acting Presiding Justice Cole Blease for the unanimous panel.

The three justices on the panel – including Justice George Nicholson and Justice Andrea Lynn Hoch – upheld a ruling by Sacramento Superior Court Judge Helena Gweon.Experts said the case continues a trend in which courts have ruled that adults who aren't biological or adoptive parents can still be assigned parental rights and responsibilities. The purpose: to promote the well-being of children and ensure their financial support, Levine said.

"The state has a great interest in having those who want the benefits of parenthood to take on the responsibilities and obligations that go with parenthood," he said. "That's true for straight and gay couples."

The string of cases that led to this month's ruling in S.Y. v. S.B. included the California Supreme Court's 2002 decision in a case involving a boy identified as Nicholas H. In that case, the court granted custody to a woman's former live-in boyfriend, who admitted he was not the boy's biological father but had acted as his father since birth.The biological father was nowhere to be found.Traditionally, adults not related by blood or adoption would have been deemed "legal strangers" to children, but things have changed, said Courtney Joslin, a professor at the UC Davis School of Law, who specializes in family law and sexual orientation and the law.

In the recent case, "the court says you have to look at the reality of families' lives, and the most important inquiry is whether a person is actually functioning as a parent."Deborah Wald, the lawyer who argued the case for S.Y. at the appellate level, said the decision was part of "a sea change that started with In re Nicholas H.""What we've seen is that the courts are starting to look at parentage issues from a child's perspective, which is a very big shift. Before, children were treated more like property."Now the courts are starting to ask, 'Who do these children think their parents are?'

It's a child-centered approach that relies on looking at behavior. Courts aren't willing to take children away from people whom they rely upon."Niemi, the lawyer for S.B., took away a different lesson from the case."If you are a single parent, and there's not another parent somewhere," she said, "you have to be careful about who you allow to have a relationship with your kids."

Read more here: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2011/12/21/133732/california-court-redefining-meaning.html#storylink=cpy
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 2 • Views: 1,074 • Replies: 2
No top replies

Reply Wed 21 Dec, 2011 11:04 am
This isn't new.

We were Mo's "psychological parents" for a bit more than a year before we adopted him. That was almost 5 years ago and the laws were on the books at that time.

We had full rights as parents when we were his psychological parents and his biological parents would have had to prove their fitness in order to challenge the placement. Unlike guardianships, only the court can change it.
Reply Wed 21 Dec, 2011 12:03 pm
Thinking back on this a bit....

I remember that once we learned about the law that we had a very hard time finding a lawyer who was willing to go to court with us to try it. We finally found one who had some experience with it and he was willing to represent us. The case he had used it with before was with a gay couple.

Since that time gay marriage/civil union/whatever you want to call it has really become a big issue so perhaps the laws seem new simply because they're being dusted off.

Anyway it comes about I think it's good news for kids. A child that bonds with someone should be allowed to keep that bond as long as the person has a positive impact on the child's life and has the child's best interest at heart.
0 Replies

Related Topics

parental rights before the baby is born - Question by lottlemiss
Terminating parental rights - Question by jerika7712
Relinquishing parental rights - Question by pitario
Wrongful Termiantion - Question by HOPEFUL PARENT
Parental rights! - Discussion by motherof2kidz
David Goldman Custody case - what's up? - Discussion by sullyfish6
  1. Forums
  2. » California courts redefining meaning of parent
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 01/21/2022 at 09:04:02