EDIT: The story is a bit confusing because it leaves out other details, but it's unique in that the biological mother of the child is now in a heterosexual marriage relationship and now devout evangelical religiously and so it brings up the "what's in the best interest of the child"?
Posted by romanylass (Member # 6306) on :
My opinion is that Jones should be able to visit the child. I can only imagine how wrenching to help raise a child and then be denied contact.
Posted by theresa51282 (Member # 8037) on :
I think it is sad that the law forces these situations by not allowing some form of legal togetherness for gay couples. It causes these situations where a couple who planned to have a child together and even raised the child together for many years has no way to legalize the relationship and always leaves the door open for one person in the relationship to take hold of all custody rights.
Posted by Brinestone (Member # 5755) on :
I personally suspect that the mother's not wanting to have Jones visit the child coincides with her not wanting an old lesbian partner showing up in her squeaky-clean heterosexual church-going life. It would just make things messy.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
Where's it say that she now has a squeaky-clean, heterosexual, church-going lifestyle?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Isn't it true that grandparents only have rights to see their grandchildren in some states? In many others, grandparents cannot sue for visitation rights, as that relationship is left up to the parents.
I don't see how grandparental relationships are up to the parents, but this relationship could be ordered to continue.
---
For those who think she should have visitation rights, would you support the same thing if the ex-partner was a male who was not the father of the child?
Posted by Brinestone (Member # 5755) on :
I don't think the mother should be forced to allow her old partner to see the child; I don't think the law should be able to dictate that. However, I do question the mother's motives.
Jon Boy, she's now in a relationship with a man and going to church. I don't know if it said in the article, but it did say that on the news when I was watching it the other night.
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
Katharina,
That's not really a fair comparison. If Jones had been a man and they decided to have a child, even if he couldn't have children, then their agreement to have a child together is enough for him to have visitation rights later (maybe not by law...but I'm talking about what feels right). ALSO, it would be legally acceptable for this hypothetical couple to marry, which they probably would have done. The lesbian couple didn't have that option. So the comparison isn't fair. If a hetero couple were married, had a child where one parent couldn't be the biological parent and that parent was allowed to adopt the child... shouldn't he have visitation rights if they break up later?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:My opinion is that Jones should be able to visit the child.
That's my opinion as well. But I'm not sure the courts should force Barlow to allow visitation.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Katarain,
Does that mean the child is being used to make a political point? Because if the reasoning for allowing it is because adoption wasn't possible when it was wanted, then the kid is being used.
My feeling is that if someone is not a biological or adopted parent, does not have an amicable relationship with the parents, and the child is under five years old and will therefore likely not remember the loss, then the parents should not be forced to allow visitation. Even, frankly, if it is the grandparents or godparents or treasured aunt or nanny.
What if instead of being the partner of the mother, the person suing for visitation rights was a former nanny that had been fired. Should the courts order that relationship to continue?
Loving someone else's child is always a risk. This one didn't pan out.
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
Kat, I just said it wasn't a fair comparison, as a hetero couple could have gotten married and the man would have had a stronger case. I didn't say the woman SHOULD get visitation rights. I simply don't know. The judge can decide what's best for the child.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Fair enough.
I actually like the nanny comparison much better. If a child has the same nanny for many hours a day every day since the day it was born, and then the nanny was fired after three years, should the former nanny be able to sue for visitation rights? The kid definitely knows and almost assuredly loves her, but she no longer has any relationship at all with the parents and no formal relationship with the child, despite the emotional bond.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote:Because if the reasoning for allowing it is because adoption wasn't possible when it was wanted, then the kid is being used.
I disagree completely. Assuming that the statements in the article are accurate (which is, or course, a big IF), the two women planned together to have a child and raised the child together for 2 years. Which would be equivelent to a opposite sex couple choosing to have a child together and using donor sperm because the man was infertile.
Saying "I would have adopted her if it was possible" doesn't mean the child is being used, it means that the woman considered herself the child's parent. It's not a political manuver for adoption rights, it's a statement of how she veiwed her relationship with the child.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Honoring that intent would be creating de facto adoption rights, then.
Whatever she says now, she didn't adopt the kid then, nor does it look like there was anything drawn up to say "I want to, but the state won't let me." You can't claim that you would have adopted someone after the fact.
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
All I know, is that child is going to be messed up mentally if they do have a "joint custody" because you have two POLAR opposites with the child at the center.
In this case I lean heavily in favor of "best interest of the child" and the biological mother already has the edge on that relationship due to biology. If it happens that the marriage is a stable, loving one vs. an open homosexual (I mean open in that she's not committed to one person currently, not open as in "out in the open")
I do sympathize with the ex-mother however because it does have to be very, very hard to become attached to a child. However, her relationship for all legal intents and purposes was very risky to begin with as Gay Marriage/Unions are not legal here and there can biologically only be ONE mother (egg) and ONE father (sperm) in the creation of a child (as far as I know).
I feel the sorriest for the child. Children suffer so much because of our inability to be good parents as a whole society. God forgive us for failing our children.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
quote:there can biologically only be ONE mother (egg) and ONE father (sperm) in the creation of a child (as far as I know).
I'm curious as to the state of surrogacy laws in Utah, then. Do you know anything about them?
![[Smile]](smile.gif)