Eleven years ago, Page Britain gave birth to a baby girl, assisted by her partner of six years, Sue Ellen Carvin. Nine months before, Carvin had helped artificially inseminate Britain with sperm donated by a friend. Britain and Carvin raised the little girl together until their relationship ended just before the child's sixth birthday.
Then, Britain tried to prevent Carvin from seeing the child. Carvin went to court, petitioning for visitation rights despite having no legally recognized relationship to the child. In November, the Washington State Supreme Court ruled that Carvin does indeed have legal standing from which to seek visitation. To achieve this result, the court dipped into the magician's hat of common law (loosely defined) and pulled out a rabbit: de facto parenthood.
Washington is only the latest state to embrace this new concept. At least ten states, including California, Maine, Massachusetts, New Jersey, and Wisconsin, allow a person with no legal or biological relationship to a child to petition for "de facto" or "psychological" parent status on the basis of a relationship between the adult and child. The judge can award this legal status if he determines that the adult filled the function of a parent for a sufficient length of time. We are likely to see more courts take this step in the future. As long ago as 2000, the influential American Law Institute issued suggested guidelines for de facto parenthood in its Principles of the Law of Family Dissolution, cited in several of the rulings establishing de
facto parenthood.
The advent of de facto parenthood has been hailed as a victory for gays and lesbians, who, it is argued, must be allowed to establish legal parenthood this way since they cannot do so through marriage. But judicially created and enforced de facto parenthood is not the only way to address the situation of gay and lesbian couples raising children; indeed, many of the states that have created de facto parenthood already allowed second-parent adoption to gay and lesbian couples, but couples who ended up in court had declined to take advantage of it.
And gays and lesbians are not the only ones seeking de facto parenthood; Youmans v. Ramos, one of the cases that defined de facto parenthood in Massachusetts, involved a dispute between 11-year-old Tamika's father and her aunt, who had raised Tamika while her father was away serving in the military. Nor will gays and lesbians be the only ones to suffer from the unintended consequences of creating a new class of parents, retroactively designated and detached from any foundation in biology or adoption.
Under the new regime of de facto parenthood, biological and adoptive parents, gay or straight, may find that they have unintentionally given third-party adults a legally enforceable right to their children after cohabiting or remarrying. The tests that courts have set up to determine de facto parenthood are supposed to take into account the intentions of any legal parents. But will judges really be able to tell whether a mother or father was "fostering a parent-like relationship" between, say, a new lover and a son or daughter or merely encouraging them to get along?
|
