Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
The Non-Biological Parent
A recent case from the appellate court in Washington demonstrates the lack of protection offered by the Uniform Parentage Act (UPA) to children raised by same-sex couples and to the non-biological parent. The court in In re the Parentage of L.B., 121 Wn. App. 460, 89 P.3d 271 (2004), cert. granted, 152 Wn.2d 1013, 101 P.3d 107 (2004), filled in the gap left by the legislature in recognizing the relationship between the non-biological parent/primary caregiver and the child by creating a common law cause of action for the psychological parent.
Sue Carvin brought an action against her former partner, Page Britain, the biological mother of L.B. under the UPA seeking to establish co-parentage of L.B. L.B. was conceived during the women's 12-year domestic relationship. Carvin argued that, in order to be constitutional, the UPA must be liberally construed to allow her claim. Alternatively, Carvin claimed status as a de facto or psychological parent under the common law of Washington. Carvin also sought visitation rights under Washington's third party visitation statute. The trial court held that Carvin had no cause of action and dismissed her petition. The appellate court agreed that the UPA did not offer Carvin a cause of action under the UPA but declined to address the constitutionality of the Act because Carvin stated a cause of action as a de facto/ psychological parent under common law.
Facts of the Case
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
The Stranger to the Deed Rule
In 1987, a unanimous Court of Appeals reaffirmed the vitality of the "stranger to the deed" rule, which holds that if a grantor executes a deed to a grantee purporting to create an easement in a third party, the easement is invalid. Daniello v. Wagner, decided by the Second Department on November 29th, makes it clear that not all grantors (or their lawyers) have received the Court of Appeals' message, suggesting that the rule needs re-examination.