WP: Court Denies Parental Status of Ex-Partners (same-sex couple)

[MountainLaurel]

Maryland's highest court ruled yesterday that someone who lives with and helps raise a child before a relationship with the child's legal parent dissolves has virtually no rights to custody or visitation, in a decision that disappointed advocates for same-sex couples.

By reversing two lower courts that ruled in favor of a Baltimore County woman who sought custody or visitation rights with a girl adopted by her ex-partner, the Court of Appeals held that Maryland does not recognize de facto parenthood. Instead, the court ruled, the person claiming to be a de facto parent must prove "exceptional circumstances" to gain visitation rights over a legal parent's objection.

"Even if we were to recognize some form of de facto parenthood," the majority in the 6 to 1 decision wrote, "the real question in the case . . . will remain, whether . . . a third party, non-biological, non-adoptive parent . . . should be treated differently from other third parties. We have not been persuaded that they should be."

The court returned the case to the Baltimore County Circuit Court to decide, using the new standard, whether the woman who brought the case, referred to in court papers as Margaret K., should have visitation rights with the girl, Maya.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/19/AR2008051902461.html

Apparently Maryland has started to compete with Virginia to see who can get back to the 19th century first.

:cry:

[Rhythm]

1. And this is diametrically opposite of the court case here in WV in 2005

[MountainLaurel]

2. Damn, when WV is being more progressive than your state

You know you're in trouble. (Although I am tickled to see this sort of decision there!)

[Rhythm]

3. ... and that was with Don Blankenship's "bought and paid for" bench...

We'll have an even more reasonable state Supreme Court after the November election!

[Ayesha]

4. This sucks, BUT

Why on earth didn't the second partner adopt the child after the first adoption was finalized? A few states don't allow it, but most do. If it wasn't possible, some sort of guardianship arrangement, SOMETHING to establish that both women intended to be parents to the child. My partner and I would never have children if we both couldn't be legal mothers to them. To me, this case could easily be seen as a step-parent relationship. Step-parents, no matter how close they may be to a child, don't have parental rights unless they do an adoption. This case was pure irresponsibility on the part of the mothers involved, IMO.