Rekjalhew

November 5, 2005

The Washington State Supreme Court parenthood case!

by IndependentConservative @ 2:18 am. Filed under Judiciary, Nuts on Parade

The Washington State Supreme Court has created law from thin air to determine a new standard for parenthood in that state. Most write-ups I’ve found to be very short on factual details while full of opinion. Here I will offer the full details as I know them, along with my opinion.

So first the facts of this case. I will be offering a summary of the facts as laid out in the ruling of the majority of Justices in this case and the additional factual findings of Michael Medved. I am including some information Mr. Medved provided on his show yesterday, because while it is not in the ruling of the justices it is factual and relevant.

In 1989 Page Britain (female) and Sue Ellen “Mian” Carvin (female) became involved in a non-standard relationship. Basically 2 gay women shacking up! Five years into this they decided to bring a baby into the mix. In comes John Auseth (male), a friend of theirs. He provided “the genetic material” a female would need to make this baby. Which Ms. Carvin personally inseminated Ms. Britain with in their home. On May 10, 1995 the baby (girl) is born who is called “L.B.” in court records. The original birth certificate has Page Britain as the mother, but no father recorded. Sue Carvin never filed for legal adoption of L.B. and never had any state certified claims to the child. And one other fact from the ruling that is best read in full:

1 Carvin alleges that she, Britain, and Auseth all signed notarized documents agreeing that Carvin and Britain would be the parents of the child and that Auseth would have no involvement. While these documents are not part of the record, Britain admits to their existence but claims she is unaware of their whereabouts and has no recollection of their contents.

So they all signed documents that are not recognized by the state.

Also, they live in Seattle, WA which does have a Domestic Partnership Registration program, but they never signed up. So they never made any effort at all to register anything with the state. They had nothing legal, but were trying to “act like” a mother and father with a child!

(Of course I could go on about the immorality of offering special recognition and registration for gays, and how sinful gay adoption is, but I’m sticking to this case in this particular post and don’t want to sidebar too far off into other related details. Just the same, this is just one big fat sinball from the beginning! A gay couple with an illegitimate baby!)

When L.B. was 6 years old Page and Sue had what I guess we can call a parting of the ways. No more shacking up! But they tried to “act like” a formerly married couple with shared custody. Then in spring of 2002 when L.B. was 7 years old Page decided to cut Sue off totally and denied her all access to L.B. . After this Sue suddenly tried to get herself recognized as a parent by the state. After Sue started trying the legal route, Page (L.B.’s mother) and John (L.B.’s biological father) got married and they admit it was in response to the legal action. And then John asserted his legal claim as father:

Auseth signed a paternity affidavit and the parties requested an amended birth certificate for L.B., listing Auseth as the ‘father.’

So here you have a married couple, who are the biological parents of the child, with all the state certified documentation to prove it!


Well The Washington State Supreme Court says Sue can file a lawsuit to be considered a parent of L.B. too!!! And the nightmare begins! Basically the court claims that since Sue was involved in raising L.B. she is a “de facto parent”. But Sue still needs to go through lower courts to be officially deemed a “de facto parent”.

As is mentioned in the dissenting opinion:

If or when the court below decides she is a ‘de facto’ parent, Carvin will magically obtain the fundamental rights of a parent — rights equal to those of L.B.’s biological and legal mother, Britain. Unfortunately, the court will then likely divide custody on some unspecified basis.

Some are saying Sue has already been deemed a parent, but that is not “official” yet!

Michael Medved mentioned that Page has given her life to Christ and is now a born again Christian, who cut Sue off from L.B. because she was not happy with some things Sue was exposing L.B. to.

So what started as a mess was cleaned up by Page and covered in the blood of Jesus. And now The Washington State Supreme Court wants to pull the SIN back in!!!

Aside from the spiritual aspects, this case has no legal foundation! Sue had no legal claims to L.B.! Page is the child’s mother and in the eyes of the law Sue was just a friend and nothing more! This ruling has the effect of allowing a nanny who feels they were with a child much of it’s life to sue and claim parental rights! Or what if a woman is living with a non-intimate roommate who helps in raising the child? Now if that woman gets married, the former roommate will be able to sue for parental rights too, the way this ruling works! Even a “live in” boyfriend would be able to make a claim if he and a woman with a child that is not his own broke up! JUST INSANE!!!

Here are some other good points from the dissenting opinion:

At the outset, I note that the sexual orientation history of the parties in this case should be irrelevant under the straightforward analysis the statute and constitution require.1 Regardless of the various sexual orientation claims, the outcome must be that a mother has a fundamental right to make decisions for her child. The Washington Uniform Parentage Act (UPA), chapter 26.26 RCW, requires the same analysis and conclusion as do the state and federal constitutions: L.B.’s mother, Page Britain, is fit (no contrary allegation has been made), and therefore the courts must presume that she acts in her child’s best interests.
…
This outcome is unconstitutional and in derogation of rights of the mother because it interferes with an admittedly fit parent’s fundamental right to make child rearing decisions. See Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57, 120 S. Ct. 2054, 147 L. Ed. 2d 49 (2000); see also In re Parentage of C.A.M.A., 154 Wn.2d 52, 109 P.3d 405 (2005); In re Custody of Smith, 137 Wn.2d 1, 969
P.2d 21 (1998). It will be shown below that this ‘de facto’ claimant meets none of then qualifications of a parent under the UPA. Further indicative of Carvin’s motives here, her counsel admitted at argument that Carvin has not contributed to L.B.’s support since this litigation began.
…
Instead of helping support L.B., she has chosen to engage in protracted litigation that is costly, financially and emotionally — undoubtedly causing agonizing stress on little L.B., who has become a battleground for this interpersonal and political debate.3
The majority purports to dispose of the constitutional issue raised in Troxel and Smith by waving a magic wand and creating ‘de facto’ parents: ‘{o}ur common law recognition of another class of ‘parents’ eradicates the parent/nonparent dichotomy that was the crux of both the Smith and Troxel opinions.’ Majority at 38. However, it is this court’s creation of this new class of parents that is the constitutional violation (and the court has no power to ‘eradicate the parent/nonparent dichotomy’ which has existed as long as there have been families).

What also makes this outcome interesting is that a case is coming before that court soon, where a gay couple is trying to sue to be called “married” :roll: . So this ruling indicates how that case could go!

One other interesting note, the author of the majority opinion Justice Bobbe Bridge was arrested for drunk driving just 2 years ago!

Supreme Court Justice Bobbe Bridge was arrested on charges of drunken driving and hit-and-run Friday after leaving the scene of an accident about a mile from her home in the Magnolia neighborhood, according to the Seattle Police Department.

LifeSite has more reaction and information.

DL Foster’s Perspectives In Motion linked with The parent trap



Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

« Thailand’s Islamic Radicals Target Teachers
The Bird Flu Pork-Ball, Part II »

Independent Conservative - Copyright 2008 - Copyright Notice

[powered by WordPress.]

31 queries. 0.358 seconds