Make Money on your blog or
site with Snowton
The De Facto Is That I'm Not Impressed
Dateline: 06/30/99
Color me picky, or difficult to please, but I am not all that excited with or by the ruling granting visitation to the non- custodial/biological mother of child.
You think I'd be happy that the Massachusetts Supreme Court just ruled 4 - 2 that a lesbian co-parent has a right to visitation with "her former partner's son" even though she failed to take advantage of a law which would have allowed her to legally adopt him. Or that the decision stated visitation would be "in the best interests of the child."
Or even that I'd save all my derision for the Justice who wrote that the decision is a "denigration of parental rights" and an "unwarranted judicial intrusion" into family relations.
But no, this type of decision just doesn't do it for me.
You see, I'm at the point in my life where what is important is when it is recognized that we should and do have an equal right which has previously been denied us. Examples include the almost two-year-old New Jersey ruling, also dealing with the raising of children, but in that case granting a right of direct adoption by a gay couple, rather than the legal farce of one partner adopting and then the second partner co-adopting.
This country learned many years ago that separate is not equal. Why then would we ever celebrate half a loaf?
Yet I expect a flurry of news releases from gay and lesbian groups across the country, hailing this ruling as a step in the right direction.
No.
A step in the right direction would have been saying: "This woman is a parent, and entitled to parental rights."
Instead the Court ruled, "She acted enough like a parent, that we'll give her the rights of a parent." They say that she's a parent "in fact" (de facto) but not "in law" (de jure).
Unless you are a parent, you may not see the difference. But think about the other case this same court ruled on the previous week, granting visitation rights to an aunt who had served as a "de facto" parent against the wishes of the child's father.
Isn't that nice?
Perhaps next time it will be a soccer coach, or a teacher, or the minister.
There is no doubt but that both of these women were parent to this child, who was born via artificial insemination after a joint decision to bear and raise a child together.
The decision should have been, "This woman is also a parent, she has parental rights."
Or, "We'll uphold the co-parenting agreement the women signed, the fact that both names are on the birth certificate as parents, the joint birth announcements...." etc. etc. etc.
I'd even have been happier with, "Our state allows co-parent adoption. Why didn't she avail herself of that right? Petition denied." (Harsh, but sometimes the law is just that...)
I'm glad that a co-parent was not treated as a non-entity by the legal system - and I'm glad that this child will continue to have legally required access to both parents.
I just wish that the decision had been made on terms that meant something ... had included some recognition of something beyond what a coach or a teacher or, as with the week before, an aunt could have obtained.
In Pride,
Deborah
FREE MONEY
BELOW
