Tenn. judge says only husbands — not women — get parental rights in same-sex divorce

[Judi Lynn]

Source: Raw Story

Tenn. judge says only husbands — not women — get parental rights in same-sex divorce
Arturo Garcia
25 Jun 2016 at 17:55 ET

A judge in Knox County, Tennessee ruled that a woman may not be granted parental rights as part of her same-sex divorce because her child was conceived through artificial insemination, the Knoxville News Sentinel reported.

Fourth Circuit Court Judge Greg McMillan ruled that because Erica Witt “has no biological relationship with this child, (she) has no contractual relationship with this child.” However, he did allow her to both appeal and to seek visitation rights.

Witt and her now ex-wife, Sabrina Witt, were married in Washington D.C. in April 2014. But because Tennessee did not recognize their marriage as legal at the time. Erica Witt’s name was left off of the birth certificate when the child was born in Knoxville in January 2015.

Because of that, Sabrina Witt’s lawyer argued that Erica was ineligible for parental rights because the state law covering children conceived through artificial insemination only applies to husbands. Despite the Supreme Court ruling legalizing same-sex marriages nationwide, McMillan said on Friday that he could not enact “social policy” by updating the state law to account for that.


Read more: http://www.rawstory.com/2016/06/tenn-judge-says-only-husbands-not-women-get-parental-rights-in-same-sex-divorce/

---

[center] [/center]

[PatrynXX]

1. that is really confusing

hurts my brain.

not sure how I'd rule on that one

[mrmpa]

2. i would rule for "parents"..........

not the sire.

[Wounded Bear]

3. Kind of a bogus headline...Not the OP's fault, of course, house rules.

Reading the text, there is some real issues here that aren't mentioned in the headline.

Deserves further monitoring.

[Stonepounder]

4. I am assuming that the parent being denied parental rights is not the one who

actually gave birth. That is not at all clear in the article. At first I thought the judge was denying parental rights to the birth mother, but upon further reading perhaps he is denying the parental rights to the non-birthing parent. And, I note that he is, in effect, staying his order to give them time to appeal.

It sounds more like he feels this sort of thing is a bit above his pay grade. If so, while I may not agree with him, I can certainly understand.

[Jeb Bartlet]

5. The headline

is a bit misleading. This sounds like it would be the same case for a boyfriend who was not the biological father suing for parental rights, it would be denied on the same basis, the couple is not legally married at the time of birth and the non birth parent is not biologically related to the child. Hard ruling.

[tblue37]

6. K&R for visibility. nt

[cynzke]

7. BASED ON THIS RULING.....

The father of an adopted child would have no biological connection, and therefore would not be entitled to child visitations. Neither side would have a biological connection....then what? The child goes back? Per this ruling, nor would the wife/husband who marries a young widow(er) with an infant child. The wife/husband helps raise the child but along comes a divorce and the half of the married couple who has no biological connection is severed from seeing the child? What a kettle of fish! This ruling throws a monkey wrench into child support issues too. What about when couples split in divorce, the parent with no biological link doesn't have to pay child support? That would cover all same sex marriages. How do you rule when both parents are men and the child is adopted? The only factor that should matter is that when two people form a marriage contract, they share contractual obligations including those involving children. Equal financial support, equal visitations with exceptions....safety of the child. The court should have the discretion to prohibit visitations or impose restrictions if one partner poses a risk....i.e. drug addict, abusive, violent....!

[cannabis_flower]

8. Not the same thing

In an adoption there is a legal document declaring both parties of the marriage to be parents. In this case the marriage was done before it was legal, so in effect they weren't married (although if Tennessee has common law marriage there might be a case that they really were married ).

This would be like if I had a child from a previous marriage (or even out of wedlock with an unknown father ) and I got married and the husband never adopted the child and then we got divorced. You mentioned the person who marries someone with an infant - that's exactly what sometimes happens if somewhere along the way he doesn't adopt the child. It's a legal technically but it isn't uncommon for that to happen.

[packman]

9. Direct pipeline to Supreme Court

Let the guys and gals in black robes figure it out.

[lunatica]

10. I've been curious for years to see how these laws evolve

Because that's exactly what's happening. New human rights have consequences that go far deeper than originally considered. One big change affects everything with the ripple effect it generates.

I am waiting to see how these things are legally dealt with when it comes to cloned children. The consequences of that will be profound. Will the clone, who in effect is a person, be considered equal in the eyes of the law? Will they split those rights with the person they were cloned from? Will they be able to fight and win inheritance cases in which they can claim the right to everything their Original (to coin a phrase) gets? Can they claim first inheritance rights over their Original's children or spouse? Who will be considered the parents of the clone? The Original or the parents of the Original.

It will be fascinating to witness the fallout and to see how our laws evolve because of it.

[lark]

11. Bad law

bad judge in a bad state. I was just telling my Brazilian son-in-law last night what a poor racist state TN is and he should avoid taking a job there, they would not treat him well as he has an accent.

[left-of-center2012]

12. "the state law covering children conceived through artificial insemination only applies to husbands"

But the child would have DNA from the mother too, right?
Plus, toss in nine months of child bearing.

[treestar]

13. the terrible thing here is the one spouse

trying to block the other off. Nothing uglier than divorcing people who involve the children and try to cut off the child from the other parent. To that kid, Erica is a parent and that relationship should continue as it would where the marriage was different sex.