Lambda Legal Defends Lesbian Mother in Ohio Custody Matter – ‘These children have a right to the love and support of both parents.’
(Cleveland, Ohio, January 21, 2009) — In court papers submitted in the Ohio Eighth District Court of Appeals, Lambda Legal defended a lesbian mother in her fight to continue to parent her 11 and 8 year old sons.
“These children have a right to the love and support of both of their parents,” said Camilla Taylor Senior Staff Attorney in Lambda Legal’s Midwest Regional Office in Chicago. “The Ohio Supreme Court already has said that Ohio’s antigay constitutional amendment does not prevent a same-sex couple from sharing custody of the children they are rearing together. We shouldn’t have to address this hurtful and discriminatory argument any longer. The trial court below in this case did the right thing by focusing on the needs of the children, and awarding shared custody to these women based on more than a century of Ohio case law allowing such orders.”
Lambda Legal represents Rita Goodman in her pursuit to continue to parent her two sons. Goodman and her former partner Siobhan LaPiana were in a committed relationship for 10 years. During that time the women planned and had two children. LaPiana gave birth to the children but both women equally parented the boys, who love and rely on both of them as their mothers. Before the birth of the first child, Goodman and LaPiana drafted and signed a parenting agreement detailing their intent to share all responsibilities of parenthood. After the couple split, LaPiana began restricting Goodman’s time with the boys. In February 2007, Goodman filed a lawsuit, and in August, 2008, the trial court ordered visitation for Goodman. LaPiana appealed, arguing, among other things, that Ohio’s antigay constitutional amendment prevents courts from entering orders permitting former lesbian partners to share custody, and that the court’s order unconstitutionally infringed on her right to autonomy as a parent.
Lambda Legal argues that Ohio’s antigay constitutional amendment has no impact on Ohio courts’ authority to order shared custody between former same-sex partners. Additionally, Lambda Legal argues that because LaPiana agreed to co-parent her children from birth with Goodman, it is constitutional for courts to step in to protect the children’s bonded relationship to Goodman.
On December 31, 2008, in the Lambda Legal case, In re J.D.F., the Ohio Supreme Court rejected a similar effort by a woman in a custody dispute with her former partner to use Ohio’s antigay constitutional amendment as a weapon to sever the parental relationship between her child and her former partner.
“This has always been about my sons and making sure they can rely on both of their parents. I made a promise to take care of them always — and I’m just trying to make good on that promise,” said Lambda Legal client Rita Goodman.
Lambda Legal represents Rita Goodman along with cooperating attorney Pamela J. MacAdams, of
Camilla Taylor, Senior Staff Attorney is handling the case for Lambda Legal. She is joined by co-counsel
Pamela J. MacAdams of Morganstern, MacAdams & DeVito Co., LPA, in Cleveland, Ohio.
The case is In re S.J.L. and J.K.L.
| Published by |
 |
Original source : http://gay_blog.blogspot.com/2009/01/lambda-legal-…
Canadian gay couple shares adoption success story
BurlingtonPost.com says Yo Mustafa and Paul Groulx “went from zero to three children in a matter of six months”. The couple, which has been together since 1989, now cares for three boys including a 13-year old and 11-year-old twins.
Mustafa and Grouix started their adoption journey in July 2003 by attending an Adoption Council of Ontario information evening.
The sons were neglected by their biological parents and eventually placed into the care of Children’s Aid. At the time, the older boy was six years old and the twins 3-1/2. They were in foster care two years.
See Canadian gay couple shares adoption success story
Proud Parenting
| Published by |
|
Original source : http://gay_blog.blogspot.com/2009/01/canadian-gay-…
Ohio Supreme Court limits impact of gay marriage ban
(Columbus, Ohio) The Ohio Supreme Court has let stand an appeals court ruling that said the state’s constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage cannot be used to terminate a child custody agreement between partners.
“The Court has expressly shut down arguments that Ohio’s antigay amendment impacts parenting and child custody relationships, rights, …
Gays asking Washington lawmakers to expand rights Seattle Times – United States
State Sen. Ed Murray of Seattle and five other gay members of the Legislature are working on a bill that would expand the rights approved in the 2007 domestic-partnership law.
Nearly 5,000 couples have registered to claim rights such as hospital visits and community property. Murray wants to add pensions and parenting and tax issues.
Murray also told The Olympian he also plans to introduce a same-sex marriage bill but thinks it’s too early to push for full marriage rights for same-sex couples.
See Gays asking Washington lawmakers to expand rights
Seattle Times – United States
| Published by |
|
Original source : http://gay_blog.blogspot.com/2009/01/gays-asking-w…
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-…
ACLU Asks Court To Strike Down Arkansas Parenting Ban
At a press conference at the Arkansas State Capitol this morning, several of the plaintiffs described how Act 1, which is set to go into effect on January 1, impacts their families and why they decided to be part of the case.
Stephanie Huffman, who already adopted one child from the state in 2004, was one of the plaintiffs who spoke at today’s press conference. Huffman and her partner of 10 years, Wendy Rickman, want to adopt another child or a pair of siblings through the Department of Children and Family Services, but now can’t because of Act 1. “The state already knows we’re good enough parents that they placed one child with us before Act 1 passed,” said Huffman. “Who knows how many children are now cut off by this law from loving homes?”
In the lawsuit filed today, the ACLU argues that Act 1 violates the federal and state constitutional rights to equal protection and due process. Participating in the case are 29 adults and children from over a dozen different families, including a grandmother who lives with her same-sex partner of nine years and is the only relative able and willing to adopt her grandchild who is now in Arkansas state care, several married heterosexual couples who have relatives or friends disqualified by Act 1 who they want to adopt their children if they die, and a heterosexual woman who wants to be a foster or adoptive parent but can’t because she lives with her partner of five years. The complaint was filed this morning in Pulaski County Circuit Court.
“Ever since the election, we’ve been hearing from all corners of the state from dozens of families who are panicking about how Act 1 impacts them,” said Rita Sklar, Executive Director of the ACLU of Arkansas. “This law hurts families and children in many ways – it takes away parents’ right to decide for themselves who will adopt their children if they die, it denies the many children in Arkansas state care a chance at the largest possible pool of potential foster and adoptive homes, and denies couples who are living together but unmarried the chance to provide loving homes to children who desperately need them.”
Sheila Cole: Sheila lives in Tulsa, Oklahoma with Jennifer, her partner of nine years. Sheila’s adult daughter from an earlier relationship had a baby girl in May of 2008 who was placed in the Arkansas foster care system when she was two months old. Sheila wants to adopt her granddaughter and is the relative best able to take in the baby. Every week she makes a four-hour round trip to Bentonville for two hours of visitation with her granddaughter. Sheila has taken foster parenting classes with Oklahoma’s DHS and has passed a home study. She is now waiting for approval from Arkansas, but she’s worried she might not be approved to adopt her own granddaughter because of Act 1.
Stephanie Huffman and Wendy Rickman: Stephanie and Wendy have been together for 10 years and are raising two sons together, one of whom is a 7-year-old with special needs whom Stephanie adopted from the state in 2004. Stephanie and Wendy want to adopt another child, or perhaps a pair of siblings, but can’t because of Act 1.
Cary and Trina Kelley: Cary and his wife, Trina, have two young daughters and live across the road in Fayetteville from Cary’s mother Vickie Kelley and her partner Sophia Estes. Sophia and Vickie have been together 16 years, and cumulatively have three children and six grandchildren. If anything were to happen to Cary and Trina, who held their wedding in Vickie and Sophia’s backyard, they want Vickie and Sophia to be able to adopt their children. Trina, Cary’s wife, spent many years of her childhood in state care and she feels very strongly that children who need homes shouldn’t be cut off from loving relatives like Sophia and Vickie.
Kaytee Wright: Kaytee Wright lives on a farm in Cabot with her partner of five years, Alan Leveritt. Kaytee helps Alan raise his eight-year-old daughter from his previous marriage, of whom he has joint custody. Together she and Alan are also providing a home and financial assistance to a mother and her two young children through a Little Rock shelter for the working homeless. Kaytee was adopted from state care when she was just four weeks old, and she feels very strongly that good homes should be provided to children in the state system. Kaytee would like to adopt a child but cannot because she and Alan aren’t married.
For a complete list of all the plaintiff families and more detailed profiles, please visit http://www.aclu.org/lgbt/parenting/38199res20081230.html
The plaintiffs are represented by Christine P. Sun, Rose Saxe, and Leslie Cooper of the American Civil Liberties Union, Stacey Friedman, Garrard Beeney, and Jennifer Sheinfeld of Sullivan & Cromwell LLP, and Marie-Bernarde Miller and Daniel J. Beck of Williams & Anderson PLC on behalf of the ACLU Foundation of Arkansas.
The case is Cole, et al. v. Arkansas, et al. For more information on the case, including today’s complaint, visit http://www.aclu.org/lgbt/parenting/38199res20081230.html
| Published by |
|
Original source : http://gay_blog.blogspot.com/2009/01/aclu-asks-cou…
Tennessee Court order Bars divorced mom’s Partner of 9 years from Staying Overnight When mom Has Custody And Visitation of children
ACLU Urges Tennessee Appeals Court To protect rights of lesbian mom
NASHVILLE – In a brief filed today, the American Civil Liberties Union is urging a Tennessee appeals court to remove a ban preventing a divorced mom from having her partner of nine years and her own children stay at her home at the same time. The trial court unconstitutionally imposed the so-called “paramour restriction” on the lesbian couple even though the psychologist who performed the custodial evaluation in the case found the partner to be a positive influence in the children’s lives.
“Of course I’m willing to do anything to be able to be with my children, but this is really tearing us apart,” said Angel Chandler. “It’s been a huge emotional and financial drain on our family. It forces us to live apart almost every night, and it is denying my children quality time with a positive role model and person they love.”
Chandler and her former spouse, Joseph Barker, have two children, a daughter, 13, and a son, 15. Since they divorced more than 10 years ago, they have shared custody of the two children over the years. They have both entered into new relationships. Chandler has been with her partner since 1999. Barker remarried approximately 5 years ago.
It was not until May 15, 2008, that the court issued the restriction barring Chandler’s partner from her home any nights her children are with her. It was imposed after Chandler and Barker appeared before the Gibson County Chancery Court to modify their parenting plan. Even though a court-ordered psychological evaluation of all the parties noted that Chandler’s partner was a positive influence on the children, the trial judge imposed the restriction under the erroneous belief that he was required to do so under state law.
The restriction has caused a huge strain on Chandler’s relationship. Right after the order was issued, Chandler’s partner was forced to move back to North Carolina, making it virtually impossible for the couple to spend time together. Eventually they both relocated to North Carolina where they now live in a duplex that allows them to abide by the order. But Chandler had to leave her job and has just recently found suitable employment. The restriction has also been harmful to Chandler’s children, especially her daughter, who enjoyed spending time with her mother’s partner and who looked to her for advice and guidance. Living in the duplex, the couple is also losing rental income they relied on before the court imposed the ban.
“By all accounts, this family was succeeding, having gotten through a divorce and introduced a new parent into the home. But nine years on, a Judge has done his best to destroy all that by imposing this impossible restriction,” said Christine Sun, the Southeast regional senior staff attorney with the ACLU’s Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender Project. “We are hopeful that the appeals court will recognize that it is unfair to tear this family apart.”
The brief filed by the ACLU charges that the court was wrong to interpret state law as requiring it to impose the partner ban. The brief points out that while there is no evidence in the record to support the imposition of the restriction, there is ample evidence showing that the children were doing fine the first nine years when there were no restrictions on the children’s contact with the partner. The psychological report concluded that the children had a positive parent-like relationship with the partner and that children who grow up in homes headed by same-sex couples tend to develop normal social relationships. The brief also charges that the restriction is unconstitutional. It unconstitutionally interferes with Chandler’s ability to raise her children as she sees fit, and it places an impossible burden on gay and lesbian parents. The brief notes that unlike straight couples, who have the option of marrying, lesbians and gay men are barred from marrying in the state and would never be able to live with their partners under these restrictions.
“Unfortunately, this case is an all too familiar example of how unfairly lesbian and gay parents are treated in custody and visitation proceedings,” said Hedy Weinberg, Executive Director of the ACLU of Tennessee. “All the children’s health and welfare organization have long recognized that lesbian and gay parents are just as capable of being good parents as straight couples and their children are just as well adjusted. We’re hopeful the Tennessee courts will come to that realization too.”
In addition to Sun, Chandler is being represented by Lucian Pera and Brian Faughnan of Adams and Reese, LLP, Tricia Herzfeld of the ACLU of Tennessee, and Gregory Minton. A copy of the brief filed today in the Court of Appeals of Tennessee, Western Division is available at http://www.aclu.org/lgbt/parenting/38168res20081223.html.
| Published by |
|
Original source : http://gay_blog.blogspot.com/2008/12/tennessee-cou…
Supremes ignoring gay cases in ’08
Right wing fails to compel US Supreme Court to review landmark gay parenting decision.
Supremes ignoring gay cases in ’08
Right wing fails to compel US Supreme Court to review landmark gay parenting decision.
It’s about the kids Arkansas Times
It’s all on the table now. Occasional protests to the contrary, the ultra-right fundamentalists at the ”Family” Council now make it clear that their initiated act to limit adoption and foster parenting is about punishing gay people, no more or less. If it hurts children, they don’t care.
The state’s recent hearing about dropping a blanket ban against unmarried couples as foster parents was just a sham, the religionists say. The overwhelming testimony from foster parents, foster children and medical and social service professionals? It can’t hold a candle to homophobia.
Don’t be confused. The state wants to follow a policy in which – on a case by case basis and considering every possible factor, including a potential family – the best decision will be made for a child. If putting the interest of children first is the “gay agenda,” as the “Family” Council puts it, sign me up. It’s one helluva lot more compassionate than the hateful agenda they’re peddling.
More of It’s about the kids Arkansas Times
This posting was automatically generated from a feed from Gay News Blog Read more….
