Litigation

Justice Barbara J. Pariente, writing for the majority, said the decision relied on “longstanding constitutional law that an unwed biological father has an inchoate interest that develops into a fundamental right to be a parent, protected by Florida and U.S. Constitutions, when he demonstrates a commitment to raising the child.”'

The statute is unconstitutional as applied under due process clauses of the state and federal constitutions and the privacy provision of the Florida Constitution, Pariente said. The law also violates federal and state equal protection law “by denying same-sex couples the statutory protection against the automatic relinquishment of parental rights that it affords to heterosexual unmarried couples.””

Pariente said that the mother who took the child to Australia, identified in court records only as D.M.T., is not being denied her right to parent. The decision only requires that her estranged partner T.M.H.'s right to parent be recognized.

“D.M.T.'s preference that she parent the child alone is sadly similar to the views of all too many parents, who after separating prefer to exclude the other parent from the child's life,” she wrote.

The case was distinct both for its approach to the subject of same-sex rights and parental rights involving conception by artificial means. ' Daily Business Review

A lesbian mother who separated from her partner does not lose her parental rights to a child born during the relationship, a divided Florida Supreme Court ruled in November 2013. The 4-3 opinion strikes down the state law on assisted reproductive technology as unconstitutional, and affirms a decision by the Fifth District Court of Appeal upholding parental rights for same-sex couples who jointly conceive a child.

The birth mother had moved to Australia and had cut access to the child born in 2004. The estranged partner, whose fertilized egg was used in the pregnancy, challenged the loss of rights and access in a state were same-sex marriage is barred.

The majority in the closely watched dispute, decided the case on federal equal protection and state privacy grounds. Three justices dissented.

Justice Barbara J. Pariente, writing for the majority, said the decision relied on “longstanding constitutional law that an unwed biological father has an inchoate interest that develops into a fundamental right to be a parent, protected by Florida and U.S. Constitutions, when he demonstrates a commitment to raising the child.”'

The statute is unconstitutional as applied under due process clauses of the state and federal constitutions and the privacy provision of the Florida Constitution, Pariente said. The law also violates federal and state equal protection law “by denying same-sex couples the statutory protection against the automatic relinquishment of parental rights that it affords to heterosexual unmarried couples.””

Pariente said that the mother who took the child to Australia, identified in court records only as D.M.T., is not being denied her right to parent. The decision only requires that her estranged partner T.M.H.'s right to parent be recognized.

“D.M.T.'s preference that she parent the child alone is sadly similar to the views of all too many parents, who after separating prefer to exclude the other parent from the child's life,” she wrote.

The case was distinct both for its approach to the subject of same-sex rights and parental rights involving conception by artificial means. ' Daily Business Review