Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%

Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.

Litigation

By ALM Staff | Law Journal Newsletters |
January 30, 2014

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

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

This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only

  • 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

For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473

Read These Next
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws Image

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 Image

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 Image

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? Image

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.

Removing Restrictive Covenants In New York Image

In Rockwell v. Despart, the New York Supreme Court, Third Department, recently revisited a recurring question: When may a landowner seek judicial removal of a covenant restricting use of her land?