Supreme Court Declines to Hear Lesbian Parent Dispute
Posted on | May 15, 2006
The Supreme Court decline to intervene in a case from the State of Washington involving a state court ruling that allowed Sue Ellen Carvin to seek custody of a child her lesbian partner, Page Britain, gave birth to. Five years into their relationship, they decided to become mothers and Britain gave birth to "LB" in 1995 becoming pregnant via artificial insemination. For seven years of LB’s life, both women filled the roll as parents. In 2001 the couple split and Carvin was not permitted to see LB.
Carvin sued in Washington State Court for parental rights which prompted Britain to marry the sperm donor who apparently lives in Thailand. The case made its way to the Washington State Supreme Court which ruled that Carvin did have the right to go to court and seek parental rights as a "de facto parent". So now the case can go to forward and Carvin has the chance to show the Washington State Court that she was an active parent during the first seven years of LB’s life and should be entitled to parental rights and responsibilities.
To defend herself against her former lesbian partner, it appears as if Page Britain has gotten the bigoted lawyers of the Alliance Defense Fund to help her cause. ADF senior vice president Jordan Lorence was quoted as predicting doom. He says "This is becoming a huge can of worms when courts do not follow the more conventional lines of parental rights." I read that as "biology overrules". Whoever thinks biology overrules action in terms of parenting needs to join the rest of us in the present because there are a lot of dead-beat moms and dead-beat dads who are less deserving of parental rights than a woman like Sue Ellen Carvin.
My problem here is that a lot of people see this as a "gay parenting" case and it is not. The gay thing is only superficial because this same situation can occur in the context of a heterosexual relationship as well. If you listen to Lorence, the ADF would have us believe this case is based solely on biology and that since Carvin does not have any biological connection to LB, she should be denied any parental rights. But homosexuality is not the only case where Sue Ellen Carvin could just have easily been a sterile male. Sue Ellen Carvin could easily be a woman unable to have children who had to use a surrogate mother to have a child. If we followed the ADF’s stance on "conventional lines of parental rights" then both of these cases would result in a real parent losing rights. The bottom line is when it comes to acting like a parent, nurture overrides nature.
Since the Justices almost never comment on their declining to hear a case, their reasons are open to interpretation. I happen to agree with Carvin’s attorneys on interpreting the Supreme Court’s rejection of the case that, given the court’s history of staying out of these fights, the Justices believe that the issue is best left to the state courts to handle.
Comments
Leave a Reply