Supreme Court ruling: Carvin v. Britain

This decision ordered a new trial for a woman seeking co-parental rights for the little girl she helped raise. Mian Carvin and Page Britain met in 1989 and soon after began a relationship. In 1994 Britain was artificially inseminated and bore a daughter. While Britain concentrated on her career, Carvin cared for their daughter. But, seven years later the couple's relationship was on the rocks and they split up. Britain took the little girl, and Carvin was shut out of the child's life. Last year a King County Superior Court Judge dismissed a petition by Carvin to be declared a parent saying that under the state's Uniform Parentage Act his hands were tied. But, the appeals court while agreeing that under the act Carvin could not be considered a parent there were other sections of the law which could apply. In ordering a new trial, the three-judge panel said that Carvin could seek status as a "de facto or psychological parent" by presenting evidence of a parent-child relationship. Or, she could argue for "third party visitation" in the same way that a child's grandparents might.

Thanks!

The Supreme Court upheld the Washington court's decision yesterday. Would they issue new opinions reinforcing Washington's decison or do they just let Washington's decision do the talking?