Does Marriage Have Value?

Yesterday the New York Daily News reported that a Manhattan judge has given a couple who are just friends the green light to become legal co-parents to an adopted girl. What happens to that child if one of the friends meets someone and gets married? Who gets custody of the child? Is it possible to divorce a friendship?

The article reports:

The pals identified, only as LEL and KAL, met in 2000 and have been close friends since, according to court papers.

Several years ago, KAL decided she wanted to become a mom, and LEL offered to be her sperm donor.

But when she couldn’t get pregnant, they “decided to instead adopt a child together,” the court papers say.

“They spent years planning and hoping” for a child, and their dream came true in 2011, when KAL was able to adopt a child — identified as G. — from Ethiopia.

They traveled to Africa together to bring the baby home, but because they weren’t married, only KAL was able to adopt, filings say.

When they returned to the U.S., the pair petitioned Manhattan Surrogate’s Court to have LEL named as a second legal parent, even though they don’t live together and are not romantically involved.

In a landmark ruling, Judge Rita Mella did so.

“From the moment they met G,, more than two years ago now, KAL and LEL have functioned as her parents,” the judge wrote in a decision from last month.

It’s not a puppy–it’s a child. What example of a loving family will this child grow up with? If the family is one of the building blocks of our society, then what impact does this ruling have on the foundation of our society?

Enhanced by Zemanta

The Cost Of Doing A Good Deed

On Saturday the Kansas City Star posted an article about William Marotta, who is being sued for child support because he answered and ad on Craigslist placed by a lesbian couple looking for a sperm donor.

This is the story:

Marotta (the donor), Bauer and Schreiner (the lesbian couple) signed an agreement saying Marotta would be paid $50 per semen donation, with the arrangement including a clear understanding that he would have no parental rights whatsoever with the child or children.

The agreement also called for Bauer and Schreiner to hold Marotta harmless “for any child support payments demanded of him by any other person or entity, public or private, including any district attorney’s office or other state or county agency, regardless of the circumstances or said demand.”

Marotta’s attorney, Hannah Schroller, said her client consulted with his wife and decided to donate free rather than take the $50. In the years since Schreiner gave birth to a daughter through artificial insemination, Marotta received periodic email updates on the child but hasn’t had much contact with the couple, Schroller said.

On Oct. 3, attorney Mark McMillan filed a petition on behalf of the Department of Children and Families seeking a ruling that Marotta is the father of Schreiner’s child and owes a duty to support her. It said the department provided cash assistance totaling $189 for the girl for July through September 2012 and had paid medical expenses totaling nearly $6,000.

In 2007 the Kansas Supreme Court ruled:

The Kansas Supreme Court today upheld legislation governing artificial insemination, ruling that a known sperm donor does not acquire parental rights unless there is a written agreement with a child’s mother.

The decision affirming the statute’s constitutionality was the first of its kind in the nation, arising out of consolidated actions filed by a mother of twins conceived through artificial insemination and by the known sperm donor for the procedure.

The mother and donor disagreed on whether they had entered into an oral agreement giving rise to parental rights for the donor. They also disagreed on whether certain documents constituted a written agreement.

What a mess. It will be interesting to see how this case is decided.

Enhanced by Zemanta