Non-Biological, Same Sex Spouse Given Parental Rights

, New York Law Journal

   | 2 Comments

The same-sex spouse of a woman who gave birth following artificial insemination has the same common law parental rights as the biological mother or a man whose wife conceives in the same manner, a judge in Rochester has held.

This article has been archived, and is no longer available on this website.

View this content exclusively through LexisNexis® Here

Not a LexisNexis® Subscriber?

Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® is now the exclusive third party online distributor of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® customers will be able to access and use ALM's content by subscribing to the LexisNexis® services via lexis.com® and Nexis®. This includes content from The National Law Journal®, The American Lawyer®, Law Technology News®, The New York Law Journal® and Corporate Counsel®, as well as ALM's other newspapers, directories, legal treatises, published and unpublished court opinions, and other sources of legal information.

ALM's content plays a significant role in your work and research, and now through this alliance LexisNexis® will bring you access to an even more comprehensive collection of legal content.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at customercare@alm.com

Originally appeared in print as Judge Applies Common Law Parental Rights to Same-Sex Partner

What's being said

  • G

    Great comment Mary! You made some excellent points.
    I would just like to add that Wendy works very hard to provide for the baby, as any mom should. Erin provides nothing financially to help Wendy. Now Wendy is not only responsible for herself and the baby, but Erin too? Certainly doesn‘t seem fair, but "justice" in this case, isn‘t fair. Erin is just another dead beat parent, wanting parental rights but not willing to do everything that it takes to be a parent.

  • Mary Rose

    I do applaud the Judge for trying to ensure that gay couples have equal rights to children they intentionally create via artificial insemination without the need for adoption. In this particular case, however, I believe that intent should have been taken into consideration. Erin was cheating on Wendy for several years, and used both Wendy‘s money and Wendy‘s body to get a child. She was cheating (obviously unbeknownst to Wendy) when they started the insemination process; she had no intention of raising said child in a loving family with Wendy. I believe this is fundamentally different than a situation where two people decide to have a child and are both planning to do so together. Erin mislead Wendy with her intentions. Now Wendy is living a nightmare where she has to financially support her adulterous soon-to-be-ex-wife and the current girlfriend, as well as supply all financial support for the child. Erin does not even have a bedroom of her own to sleep in, as she has mooched off of Wendy since they met, let alone living quarters for her daughter. She has a history of mental illness and suicide attempts. She is a manipulative parasite. This finding is a tragedy for Wendy. Hopefully future parents will be deserving of such a ruling in their favor. Erin is most definitely not.

Comments are not moderated. To report offensive comments, click here.

Preparing comment abuse report for Article# 1202655026771

Thank you!

This article's comments will be reviewed.