gay-sd.com


COMMUNITY VOICES


Children shouldn’t suffer when a relationship sours


In college, I had a fantastic,


brilliant Women’s Studies profes- sor who would talk incessantly about her son. When she and her partner split up, she lost all rights to see or help raise the child. Each time she spoke of him, her shoulders would hunch forward, her head would bow and tears would threaten to spill from her eyes. The child’s biological parent refused to let my professor see her son, using our country’s biased adoption laws to get back at her for their complicated breakup.


It was obvi- ous how much my teacher loved the child, and it saddened me that this tod- dler would soon forget who she was and never really know the love and good intentions she had for him in the world—all due to a nasty “divorce.” I don’t


vious family court ruling. The U.K.’s high court ruled


that the non-biological parent, who had not officially adopted the child, was not the registered civic partner of the biological mother and was not the biological mother of the child, was not really the child’s parent and therefore was not required to pay child support for the 10-year-old.


This is an outrage to any non-


“Gay couples are no better


pretend to know the circumstances surrounding their breakup or why anyone would put revenge above the needs of their child, but it still angers me today to realize how cruel some people can be. Through the years I have


at divorce than straight couples. We shouldn’t for a minute think we are above ugly custody battles.”


heard countless stories about naïve couples who brought a child into the world, split up, and then later one partner took it out on the kid by denying the non- biological parent any rights to raise the child. In a recent lawsuit, document- ed in the British journal, Family Law, a British biological mother took her former partner to court in an attempt to collect child support from the non-biological mother, who had already been granted visitation rights in a pre-


biological parent who is currently raising a child alongside the child’s biological parent. These parents were there from incep- tion, via the use of alternative insemination. It was not a case of a casual re- lationship that went bad later in the child’s life. These were the legitimate, primary parents of this young child.


Once again


I am reminded that we have a unique respon- sibility when bringing a child into this world as gay couples. Deciding to have a child is something a couple does to be closer to


each other and to share in their relationship. However, the minute that child takes a breath, it is no longer about the couple but about the child. This is easy to remember when things are going well for the couple, but it can get pretty sticky and complicated when things aren’t. Gay couples are no better at


divorce than straight couples. We shouldn’t for a minute think we are above ugly custody battles. Where a heterosexual


involved in a custody dispute may have to worry about their financial situation, parental involvement or standing with the law when trying to settle a claim


San Diego Coronado La Jolla Kelly Connell 619.733.2278


Jan. 28-Feb. 10, 2011


Commercial & Residential Cleaning


GAY SAN DIEGO


11


PARENTHQOD TERESE FARMEN


through the state’s court system, gay and lesbian partners have the added burden of proving their worthiness to a judge that may or may not have a deep-seated desire to indulge in their own ho- mophobia on a case-by-case basis. California allows non-biolog-


ical parents to adopt through a process known as second-parent adoption. California domestic partnership law grants this “right” to the non-biological parent, though it risks being overturned in court. So, the for- mal adoption process should not be side-stepped, even in our more liberal state. If a couple plans to bring a life


into this world, it is imperative that they protect everyone in the family, not just the part of the family favored by the courts or the law.


In the case of the British couple, because the non-biolog- ical mother was loosely granted rights to act as a guardian or parent to the child without an official adoption, she was able to slip through a loop hole to avoid paying child support. The repercussions of this


action will extend far beyond the couple’s miserable divorce. The


see Parent, pg 13


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24