Delaware Supreme Court asked to hear lesbian child custody case

The state Supreme Court has been asked to decide whether a lesbian should be allowed to share custody of three children to whom her former partner gave birth.

Family Court Judge Mark Buckworth ruled last year that, as a "de facto parent," Susan Symes had standing to petition for custody of triplets born in 1997 to Elizabeth Symes, who during their nine-year relationship legally changed her surname to that of her partner.

Elizabeth Symes argued that Susan, who gave birth to a fourth child in 2001 using sperm from the same anonymous donor used by Elizabeth, did not meet the definition of parent under state law and therefore had no legal basis to petition for custody of the triplets.

In May, however, the court awarded joint custody of the triplets to both women, who began their relationship in 1994 and separated in 2003.



http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/D/DE_SUPCO_LESBIANS_MDOL-?SITE=VARIT&SECTION=US&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2005-12-01-23-49-03

When two gay people make a commitment and rear children, one of them cannot suddenly say "you're not even the parent" to the other. That's immoral. This is precisely why second-parent adoption and legal recognition of same-sex marriages is necessary. Those women and others like them need to come to a compromise because they're not only hurting themselves and their children with this stuff.

whose wife used a sperm donor does not have parental rights? Hello? You open this can of worms and that is what will be challenged next.

But then, they don't like the idea of artificial insemination, period. Whether for straights OR gays. You see according to these good "christians", when abortion is made ILLEGAL, these infertile, straight couples will then be able to ADOPT all these previously, unwanted babies. Understand? :sarcasm:

Gay inseminations? Forget it. These people cannot understand STRAIGHT couples artificially inseminating. You expect them to give equal rights to gay couples?

Children born to marriages are assumed to be the child of the non-bearing partner unless immediately challenged. In this case, no marriage existed (not even a domestic partnership if I'm reading it right) so no legal rights were established with the second partner.

The heterosexual equivalent is actually a man and woman moving in together, and the woman getting pregnant by another man. Legally, the live-in boyfriend has no rights to the child, even if they live together for years.

I know that some judges do, but I'm glad that I don't live in a state that does.

On this issue, I actually do support equality between straights and gays. In a heterosexual relationship, there are three ways that the legal concept of "parenthood" can be established: 1) If the couple is married, any child born to that marriage is the child of both partners (in most states). 2) If the child is biologically related to the parent. 3) If the child has been legally adopted by the parent.

In this particular case, it doesn't sound like there was a marriage or any registered domestic partnership, the child isn't biologically related to the petitioner, and no legal adoption took place. Her legal relationship with the children is no different than that of a boyfriend who lived with his girlfriends children for several years. He may develop a bond with them, but they're not legally his children and he has no rights to them simply because he had a relationship with their mother for an extended period of time.

If you're gay and want children with your partner, either go to a state that permits gay marriage and get married FIRST, or file the papers to adopt and make it legal. Relationships, even long term ones, have practically no legal standing and do not grant the same rights as a marriage or other legal contract.