After the break-up, what about the lake house?
IT was a perfect party — vodka lemonade on a dock overlooking a lake, dozens of close friends, a cool misty night in the country a couple of hours north of New York.
Inside, the house spoke of a passionate interest in style, and of a committed relationship. Silhouettes of the couple who owned the house hung on a wall in the master bedroom; the couple’s nickname — Benford — was spelled out in large letters leaning against a wall in the kitchen.
But the couple, Benjamin Dixon, 31, and Bradford Shellhammer, 33, who had planned the evening as a commitment ceremony, had broken up three months earlier. Still, with airplane tickets purchased by some of the guests, a catering deposit paid and a house they haven’t been able to sell, they figured it made sense to go ahead and have a party anyway.
Their tale of lost love has a familiar arc — love sparks, then blooms; lives intertwine; moments are lost and misunderstandings creep in; eventually the two begin to live as strangers — and an epilogue that has become increasingly familiar as well, as unwanted houses become prisons rather than cocoons.
Rather than being a glossy testament to their taste and their partnership, their house in Stanfordville, in Dutchess County, is now a dead weight that entangles them and makes it impossible to move on. Having bought it and an apartment in Manhattan at the height of the real estate boom (and having made an agreement with a third partner in their lake house property not to sell it until December 2009), they are left with joint custody of two large mortgages. They are also left with two carefully decorated homes filled with one-of-a-kind accessories found on eBay and quirky furnishings by high-end designers like the Dutch collective Droog that are reminders of what came before and, Mr. Dixon said, “big reminders of what was supposed to be.”
See After the break-up, what about the lake house?
New York Times
* Tags = gay men gay news lesbian news transgender bisexual
| Published by |
 |
Original source : http://gay_blog.blogspot.com/2009/07/after-break-u…
Delaware high court reverses ruling granting shared custody to lesbian ex-partner
A lower court judge was wrong to grant a lesbian joint custody of her former partner’s adopted daughter, the Delaware Supreme Court has ruled.
In a unanimous decision handed down this week, the justices said the woman had no standing to petition for custody in Family Court because she was not the child’s legal parent. The court affirmed that under Delaware law, a person who is considered a “de facto” parent of a child does not have the same rights as a legal parent and is not entitled to custody.
Citing existing law, Justice Randy Holland wrote that a person who does not qualify as a legal parent has no standing to petition for custody of a child unless the child is dependent or neglected and a judge determines that he or she should not be placed in the custody of the legal parent.
See Delaware high court reverses ruling granting shared custody to lesbian ex-partner
The Capital (Annapolis, Md.)
| Published by |
|
Original source : http://gay_blog.blogspot.com/2009/02/delaware-high…
Ohio Supreme Court Allows Custody Decision to Stand in Lambda Legal Case Representing Lesbian Mother
‘The Court has expressly shut down arguments that Ohio’s antigay amendment impacts parenting and child custody relationships, rights, and responsibilities’
(Columbus, OH, January 5, 2009) –The Supreme Court of Ohio last week let stand an appeals court ruling affirming the enforceability of a court-approved child custody agreement in a case involving lesbian mothers.
“The Court has expressly shut down arguments that Ohio’s antigay amendment impacts parenting and child custody relationships, rights, and responsibilities,”said Camilla Taylor, Senior Staff Attorney in Lambda Legal’s Midwest Regional Office in Chicago. “The Court correctly declined an invitation to treat gay and lesbian Ohio parents differently from other families, and to deprive the children of these families of the protections and support other children receive.”
Lambda Legal represents Therese Leach in her fight to uphold a court-approved joint custody agreement signed by both her and her former partner, Denise Fairchild, in 2001. After their son was born in 1996, both women parented him. In order to ensure that Therese had a protected legal relationship with the child, the two women signed a joint custody agreement. Such agreements were approved by the Ohio Supreme Court in the 2001 In re Bonfield case in which Lambda Legal participated.
The Supreme Court decision comes after Fairchild argued, at a trial court, and the Ohio Court of Appeals for the Tenth District, that Ohio’s antigay constitutional amendment limiting marriage to a man and a woman invalidated the court approved custody agreement she originally sought with Leach. All three courts brushed aside Fairchild’s arguments, ruling that court-approved custody agreements cannot be ignored or unilaterally undone by one of the parents. In July 2008, Fairchild asked the Ohio Supreme Court to hear her case, and Lambda Legal urged the Court to refuse. Today’s order from the high court is the final word on the matter.
The case is In re J.D.F.
Camilla Taylor, Senior Attorney in Lambda Legal’s Midwest Regional office in Chicago is lead counsel on the appeal. She is joined by co-counsel LeeAnn Massucci of Massucci & Kline LLC and Thomas Schmidt of Gahanna, Ohio.
###
Erin Baer 212-809-8585 ext 267; Cell: 646-752-3251
Lambda Legal is a national organization committed to achieving full recognition of the civil rights of lesbians, gay men, bisexuals, transgender people and those with HIV through impact litigation, education and public policy work.
| Published by |
|
Original source : http://gay_blog.blogspot.com/2009/01/ohio-supreme-…
