tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-130176532024-03-23T11:12:46.957-07:00Waldlaw Blog...By contemporary family law attorney Deborah WaldDeborah Waldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11207421219908117410noreply@blogger.comBlogger237125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13017653.post-36485260476576075892014-06-01T12:35:00.000-07:002014-06-01T12:37:59.402-07:00Taking a Sabbatical from BloggingAs any observant followers may have noticed, I have not blogged since November 2013. I keep meaning to start up again -- heaven knows there are weekly events and incidents worth blogging about -- but I just never find the time. So I am taking a sabbatical from blogging. I continue to keep my website updated, as well as writing articles and speaking publicly at various venues. I look forward to communicating with all of you in other ways.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />Deborah Waldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11207421219908117410noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13017653.post-21288968884256539882013-11-30T11:36:00.001-08:002013-11-30T11:36:13.473-08:00Happy Thanksgiving from WaldlawJust a quick note to wish my readers a belated Happy Thanksgiving! I have been trying to soak in the peace and quiet after a very hectic November, and hope you all also are enjoying the opportunity to relax with loved ones over this long holiday weekend. <br />
<br />
And, for all my Jewish friends and family members, a Happy Hanukkah to boot!<br />
<br />
2013 has been a fascinating year from a family law perspective. I will take time in December to digest what I see as the top stories of this calendar year. In the meantime, best wishes to you and yours as we dive into the holiday season.<br />
<br />
Deborah Waldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11207421219908117410noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13017653.post-42122841239190296432013-11-24T11:59:00.000-08:002013-11-30T11:21:54.981-08:00The Miller-McKenna Custody Battle and the Rights of Pregnant WomenMy dear friend <a href="http://www.beesontayer.com/our-attorneys/sacramento/margaret-geddes/">Maggie Geddes</a>, employment lawyer extraordinaire, sent me a note this morning about an article she saw in today's <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/24/us/custody-battle-raises-questions-about-the-rights-of-women.html?pagewanted=1&_r=0&rref=us&hpw">New York Times</a>. Although I had not previously been aware of the Miller-McKenna case discussed in the article, it fits right into an area of family law in which I have been taking an interest for some time: the special issues that come with unintended procreation by people who have no commitment to each other. I recently wrote an article on this topic for the <a href="http://www.waldlaw.net/assets/files/AFCC-CA_Newsletter%20Issue%20_9_Summer_2013.pdf">AFCC-CA Newsletter</a>. <br />
<br />
In the Miller-McKenna case, a single woman (McKenna) and a single man (Miller) met through a professional matchmaking service. They only dated for a few months, but McKenna ended up pregnant. A former marine and active firefighter, McKenna made the decision while pregnant to relocate from California to New York to pursue her education at Columbia University. <br />
<br />
Finding that McKenna had "absconded" with the fetus, a New York trial court transferred custody from McKenna to Miller, who flew to New York to take the baby from McKenna in September, when the baby was 7 months old. Now, an appellate court has reversed that ruling, instead finding that a pregnant woman has a constitutional right to travel -- including the right to relocate -- regardless of the location of the baby-to-be's father.<br />
<br />
As with so many of these cases, there is a theme in the Miller-McKenna case of the father having suggested terminating the pregnancy; the mother having decided against getting an abortion; and the mother then taking the position that -- since the father didn't want the baby to begin with -- he should not have any say in the baby's life. But this case raises another issue -- the rights of women to be treated as people with lives and goals and aspirations, and not just as wombs. McKenna was offered the opportunity of a lifetime -- the chance to get a degree from Columbia University. The thought that she should have turned down that opportunity because she was pregnant with the baby of a man with whom she did not have a meaningful relationship, and who did not want a relationship with her, is pretty outrageous. <br />
<br />
This case is distinguishable from the much more complex (and much more common) relocation cases where a woman wants to move after a child has been born and established a meaningful attachment to its father. In those cases, the move has the potential to sever -- or at least severely erode -- a bond that already exists, to the child's presumptive detriment. Courts have recognized that even in these cases, the woman has a constitutional right to move -- the issue for the court is whether she gets to take the child with her, or whether the child should remain behind with its father. But where the child is not yet born, there is no issue of severing an established bond, the woman's constitutional right to move on with her life must control, and her decision to do so should not be held against her in subsequent custody proceedings.<br />
<br />Deborah Waldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11207421219908117410noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13017653.post-65290866373532925802013-11-15T06:52:00.001-08:002013-11-15T06:52:26.348-08:00Reporting Back from the AAARTA/ABA Conference in CharlestonI spent most of this past week at a conference on cross-border assisted reproduction, co-sponsored by the <a href="http://www.aaarta.org/aaarta-page/home">American Academy of Assisted Reproductive Technology Attorneys</a> (AAARTA) and the <a href="http://apps.americanbar.org/dch/committee.cfm?com=FL142000">Assisted Reproductive Technology Committee of the American Bar Association</a> (ABA). The conference was attended by over 250 attorneys from around the world, including England, Germany, Spain, France, Australia, Argentina and the Hague (Netherlands). <br />
<br />
Several things became clear during the conference: (1) there is a growing body of very dedicated and talented attorneys around the world who are committed to practicing assisted reproductive law at a high level (that's the good news); (2) there is no consensus among the various countries on what ART practices are ethical or legal (that's the not-so-good news); and, therefore, (3) attorneys from the different countries need to work closely together to assure that individuals and couples engaging in cross-border assisted reproduction fully understand the legal complexities of their ART journeys. To this end, it was wonderful not only to sit and listen to many thoughtful and detailed presentations on international ART law, but also to spend time socializing with and getting to know personally the top ART attorneys from the many countries represented at the conference. <br />
<br />
My take-away from this conference is a heightened conviction that no family should be engaging in cross-border ART without having consulted with skilled and experienced attorneys on <em>both sides</em> of the borders they are crossing. Happily, having been practicing international ART law for many years now -- and having had the opportunity to deepen my relationships with many wonderful attorneys from across the globe this week -- I have excellent attorneys in many countries to whom I can refer my clients who are in need of their services.<br />
<br />
International assisted reproduction law is about as cutting edge an area of law as there is. I return from Charleston, South Carolina feeling privileged to be practicing law in this arena, surrounded by such a thoughtful and talented group of colleagues.<br />
<br />
<br />
Deborah Waldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11207421219908117410noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13017653.post-28077514046480820692013-10-04T17:25:00.000-07:002013-10-04T17:32:34.368-07:00Governor Brown Signs Multi-Parent BillJust a few minutes ago, <a href="http://gov.ca.gov/home.php">California Governor Jerry Brown</a> signed into law a bill that I have worked on for the past two years, alongside the <a href="http://www.nclrights.org/">National Center for Lesbian Rights</a> and the <a href="http://www.caichildlaw.org/">Children's Advocacy Institute</a> at the University of San Diego School of Law. The bill, <a href="http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201320140SB274&search_keywords=">SB 274</a>, will allow California courts to protect children who have established relationships with more than two parents from arbitrarily losing the love and support they rely on.<br />
<br />
Here is a typical case where this bill will make a difference: a married couple has a child. They break up when the child is very young, and in the divorce the mother is awarded full physical and legal custody of the child. The father is only minimally involved in the child's life from that point forward -- but he does pay some child support, and visits with the child on special occasions. In the meantime, the woman becomes involved with another man but -- having been through a divorce once already and hated the experience, and not wanting to jeopardize the financial support she and the child are receiving from the child's father -- she and her new partner never marry. <br />
<br />
The new partner -- lets call him Frank -- assumes a parenting role for the child and as the years pass he becomes the child's primary parental figure. He puts her to bed every night after he gets home from work and they spend hours together every weekend, going for hikes and playing catch and reading books. Frank introduces the child to everyone as his daughter and she comes to know his parents as her grandparents. The child looks to Frank for the love and support and stability that children need from their parents. <br />
<br />
Mom gradually comes to resent how close the child and Frank have become and, after the three have lived together as a family for 4 years, she breaks up with Frank. Frank does everything he can to convince her to honor the relationship Frank has established with the child, but she responds that the child has a mother and a father and they don't need Frank any more. She cuts off all contact between Frank and the child.<br />
<br />
Until today, many family law courts in California would have said that there was nothing they could do to protect this child's relationship with Frank. Even though Frank clearly would qualify as a "presumed parent" under current California law -- because he received the child into his home and openly held her out to others as his daughter -- the "mother" and "father" slots both were already filled. Since Frank and the child's mother never married, Frank is not a stepfather -- so without SB 274, he is legally a stranger to this child, no matter how tightly bonded they are. <br />
<br />
But now, a court can take a long look at situations like the one described above and make a determination whether it would be detrimental to this child to lose her bonded parent-child relationship with Frank and, if the court determines that it would be, the court can recognize this child's mother, father <em>and Frank</em> all as legal parents.<br />
<br />
Today is a great day for California's children and the people who love them.Deborah Waldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11207421219908117410noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13017653.post-40266637433626595052013-08-29T13:55:00.001-07:002013-08-30T10:14:46.086-07:00Today's Marriage Recognition Rulings (UPDATED 8/30)In a <a href="http://www.treasury.gov/press-center/press-releases/Pages/jl2153.aspx">press release</a> issued today, the IRS has let it be known that all marriages of same-sex couples will be honored by our federal government for tax purposes, as long as the marriages were validly entered into by the law of the <em>place of celebration</em>. What this means, in practical terms, is that a same-sex couple that marries in any of the states where such marriages are legal will be treated by the IRS as married, regardless of where they live. <br />
<br />
So, for example, my friends who live in Florida but married in Vermont this summer are now considered married by the IRS, even though Florida does not recognize their marriage. They will need to file their federal taxes as either "married filing jointly" or "married filing separately," while presumably continuing to file their state taxes as single.<br />
<br />
Domestic partnerships and civil unions <em>will not</em> be treated as marriages by the IRS.<br />
<br />
In a companion ruling, which will be extremely helpful to married gay elders, Health and Human Services has issued its determination today that they will be using the "place of celebration" rule for Medicare. Among other things, this will assist gay seniors enrolled in a Medicare Advantage plan. Medicare beneficiaries enrolled in Medicare Advantage plans are entitled to care in the same skilled nursing facility where their spouse resides (assuming they meet the conditions for skilled nursing facility coverage and other Medicare requirements). Gay seniors with Medicare Advantage had previously faced the challenge of being placed in skilled nursing facilities away from their spouses, given the non-recognition of their marriages. This will no longer be the case.<br />
<br />
<b>UPDATE 8</b>/<b>30</b>/<b>2013</b>:<br />
<br />
A colleague in Virginia reports this morning that she has spoken with a supervisor at the Virginia Department of Taxation, who informed her that married same-sex couples in Virginia will be expected to file their Virginia state tax returns as "married filing jointly" or "married fling separately" regardless of Virginia's strong public policy against recognizing the marriages of same-sex couples. The reason: Virginia, like many states, has a state law requiring Virginia residents to file their state taxes in the same manner as their federal taxes. So filing state taxes as "single" and federal taxes as "married" would violate Virginia's state tax laws. <br />
<br />
Many historically conservative states (e.g. Ohio) have comparable tax laws, so it will be interesting to see how this plays out. For now, same-sex married couples living in non-recognition states will need to check their state tax codes - or consult with knowledgeable tax attorneys or CPA's - to make sure they are filing correctly.<br />
<br />
<div style="background: white; line-height: 14.4pt;">
</div>
Deborah Waldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11207421219908117410noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13017653.post-62337298853480788332013-08-14T13:26:00.000-07:002013-08-14T13:53:00.502-07:00Why I Support California's SB 115The current controversy over California's <a href="http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201320140SB115&search_keywords=">Senate Bill 115</a>, an "act to amend section 7630 of the California Family Code relating to parent and child relationships," has forced me to revisit a sad chapter in the history of California parentage law.<br />
<br />
Up until 2005, when a lesbian couple had a child together in California only the biological mother was considered a parent. Many of us who practiced family law in the LGBT community prior to 2005 still are recovering from the PTSD inflicted by standing next to devoted non-biological lesbian mothers while they were told by courts that they lacked standing to pursue continued relationships with the children they had loved and parented from birth.<br />
<br />
The most notorious of these cases was <em><a href="http://law.justia.com/cases/california/calapp3d/228/831.html">Nancy S. v. Michele G.</a></em>. I recommend that anyone participating in the current debate over SB 115 -- which revolves around the question of whether a sperm donor who goes on to establish a bonded parental relationship with his donor offspring should have legal standing to pursue rights as a father -- read the <em>Nancy S. </em>decision and <a href="http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Family-Circle-For-Nancy-Springer-a-1991-court-2911717.php">the story of what ultimately happened to those children</a>. I will provide a short version of that story here:<br />
<br />
<em>Nancy S.</em> was an Alameda County case involving a lesbian couple who had been together for over 10 years when their first child, Kate, was born. Nancy gave birth to Kate, and then four years later to Micah. When Micah was only 6 months old, the couple broke up and Nancy moved out of the family home. The two women shared custody for the next 3 years, with Kate living primarily with Michele and Micah living primarily with Nancy and the children visiting between the homes so that they were together several days per week. And then, one day when Kate was 8 years old, Nancy pulled her out of school and told her that Michele was no longer her mom. The same afternoon, Michele was served with a restraining order keeping her away from both children.<br />
<br />
A brutal court battle ensued, and ultimately Nancy "won" and Michele was found not to have standing to pursue even visitation with the children she had raised with Nancy from birth. However, the separation from Michele caused Kate to suffer from a clinical depression that ultimately alarmed Nancy to the extent that Nancy allowed Kate to go home to Michele. Nancy subsequently moved with Micah to Oklahoma, to join a woman there with whom she had fallen in love. In July, 1997 -- when Kate was 17 and Micah was 13 -- a tanker truck smashed into the car Nancy was driving, killing her on impact and causing Micah to be airlifted to a hospital. When he regained consciousness, he was asked who his father was. His response that he didn't have a father but did have another mother was met with resistance, and he was on his way to foster care when a sympathetic hospital employee intervened. Ultimately, with support from Nancy's family, Michele was able to obtain an emergency guardianship and bring Micah home to California, to rejoin her and his sister. For those of us who knew this family -- or knew the case -- we vowed that we would do whatever we could to assure that no child would ever again have to go through what Kate and Micah went through because of the courts' refusal to recognize a parent as a parent.<br />
<br />
A few weeks ago, I had a consultation with a prospective client. For purposes of this writing, I will call him Antonio. (I am also changing enough details here to assure his confidentiality.) Antonio is from Brazil, but has long resided in Contra Costa County. He has a 10 year old daughter that he has raised with the child's mother from birth. Antonio and the child's mother were in a committed relationship for years but never married, and were unable to conceive without medical assistance. The child was conceived by intra-uterine insemination. Thus, technically speaking, Antonio is a man who provided his sperm to a physician for purposes of inseminating a woman who was not Antonio's wife. He is, by strict application of California's Family Code section 7613(b), a sperm donor.<br />
<br />
Antonio has been co-parenting his daughter for the past 10 years. He was present at her birth and at her christening, has been her primary financial support since birth, paying for her clothes and childcare and camps and school, and she has spent at least a couple of nights every week in his home since she stopped nursing. Each summer, he has taken her to Brazil for an extended vacation so she would know his language and culture and have a meaningful relationship with his family there. He is, in every sense, her dad.<br />
<br />
Antonio and his daughter's mother are having an escalating disagreement about the best time share arrangement for this child. They are arguing about where she should sleep on school nights, versus where she should sleep on the weekends. They are arguing about how long her trip to Brazil should be this summer. Antonio came to me asking me to help him understand what his options were for obtaining a custody order that would allow him and his daughter to have security and predictability in their time together.<br />
<br />
I had to tell Antonio that -- given the current kerfuffle over SB 115 -- if he filed a custody action and his daughter's mother went to the wrong attorney, he could be faced with a motion to dismiss his custody action for lack of standing -- he could be faced with an argument that he has no right to <em>any future contact with his daughter</em> because he is "just a sperm donor." For the first time in many years, I found myself reliving the trauma of <em>Nancy S..</em><br />
<em></em><br />
I honestly thought that we were past the time, in California, when children were at risk of losing a long time devoted parental figure based on rigid application of our statutes without consideration for the fall-out to the child. As I read our statutes and our case law, and based on my own experience representing non-biological parents in California trial courts, California courts have been empowered for almost a decade to consider the children's perspective when they figure out which adult figures are legal parents and which are not. But when you read the reactions of some commentators and practitioners to SB 115, you would think that the idea that courts should try to honor children's actual experiences of who their parents are was outrageous. I am left scratching my head. Deborah Waldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11207421219908117410noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13017653.post-15911340371859688802013-07-25T14:12:00.000-07:002013-07-25T14:12:00.498-07:00Which California Same-Sex Marriages Are Valid and Recognized?Hello Dear Readers!<br />
<br />
I have not blogged in forever, having been very much occupied with other things -- and, in all honestly, I guess I also needed a vacation from blogging. But since the <em>Windsor</em> and <em>Perry </em>decisions, I have been receiving so many questions that it clearly is time to blog again. I will do my best to answer the most common questions as they come in, and appreciate that you still are tuning in after my extended break from blogging!<br />
<br />
SO -- this week's top question is: which California marriages are now recognized as marriages? I will do my best to answer this questions briefly, but comprehensively, here:<br />
<br />
(1) <strong><u>THE 2004 SAN FRANCISCO CITY HALL MARRIAGES</u></strong>: From February 12 - March 11, 2004, San Francisco issued marriage licenses to approximately 4000 same-sex couples. On August 12, 2004, the California Supreme Court ruled that San Francisco had lacked legal authority to issue these marriage licenses, and declared all 4000 marriages void. Nothing that has happened since has implicated these 4000 marriages. Having been declared void by our state Supreme Court, they remain void.<br />
<br />
(2) <strong><u>THE 2008 CALIFORNIA MARRIAGES</u></strong>: From June 16 - November 5, 2008, same sex couples were able to marry throughout the state of California as a result of our Supreme Court's ruling in <em><a href="http://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/S147999.pdf">In re Marriage Cases</a></em>. The passage of California's <a href="http://voterguide.sos.ca.gov/past/2008/general/title-sum/prop8-title-sum.htm">Proposition 8</a> on November 4, 2008, stopped the state from issuing any more marriage licenses, but the approximately 18,000 same-sex couples who already had married during the 2008 window remained married for all purposes. Therefore, all 2008 California marriages should be recognized as valid in any state that recognizes marriages between same-sex couples, and as of now also should be recognized by the federal government.<br />
<br />
(3) <strong><u>OUT OF STATE MARRIAGES</u></strong>: From November 5, 2008 - June 28, 2013, California was not issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples. However, during this time the state of California recognized the out-of-state marriages of same-sex couples as providing all the benefits -- and imposing all the responsibilities -- of marriage, even though we could not recognize them <em>as marriages. </em>These out-of-state marriages WERE NOT treated as domestic partnerships; they were recognized as "marriage equivalents" pursuant to California Family Code section 308(c). With Proposition 8 now having been declared unconstitutional, I believe that ALL marriages of same-sex couples are now recognized <em>as marriages</em> in the state of California, as long as they were lawfully entered-into wherever they occurred.<br />
<br />
Stay tuned for more answers to frequently asked questions.Deborah Waldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11207421219908117410noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13017653.post-34997685658549365002013-03-10T16:05:00.000-07:002013-03-10T16:08:04.719-07:00Surrogacy Disaster in the NewsNot surprisingly, I have received numerous phone and email messages from clients in reaction to the recent <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2013/03/04/health/surrogacy-kelley-legal-battle/index.html">CNN story</a> about a gestational surrogate who refused to get an abortion when requested to by the baby's intended parents and instead delivered a severely disabled infant that she subsequently surrendered for adoption. Even just a quick internet browser search makes clear how controversial this story is: headlines range from "<a href="http://hollywoodlife.com/2013/03/06/surrogate-baby-abortion-crystal-kelly-gives-birth-saves-life/">Surrogate Saves Disabled Baby Biological Parents Wanted Aborted</a>" to "<a href="http://www.cnn.com/2013/03/04/health/surrogacy-kelley-legal-battle/index.html">Surrogate Offered $10,000 to Abort Baby</a>." (For the most thoughtful discussion I've seen, go to "<a href="http://www.cnn.com/2013/03/05/health/surrogacy-comments-roundup">Surrogate Mother: A New Wrinkle in the Abortion Debate</a>," a CNN round-up of internet commentary spanning many perspectives.)<br />
<br />
Before addressing the legal and moral complexities of this particular situation, I must first comment on how extraordinarily rare these types of surrogacy disasters are. I have been practicing assisted reproduction law for almost 20 years and have never had a situation in my practice that has come even close to being this messy; nor have any of my colleagues in the <a href="http://www.acal.org/">Academy of California Family Formation Lawyers</a> run into this big a breakdown of the surrogacy process. Thankfully, embryology has advanced to a point where the physicians engaging in IVF can detect many fetal anomalies prior to implanting an embryo in a womb, so heartache like this often can be avoided. And when abortion or selective reduction decisions need to be made in the context of surrogacy arrangements, my experience is that the intended parents and the surrogates usually are able to cooperate and support each other through whatever difficult decisions face them. As I told one set of worried clients, who emailed me after news of this current mess broke, the good news is that these situations are so rare that you hear about them on CNN.<br />
<br />
That said, it is important to understand the legal landscape for making abortion decisions in the context of surrogacy.<br />
<br />
In states where surrogacy is legal -- and even in states where surrogacy contracts are enforceable -- there is a limit to what aspects of a contract will be "specifically enforced." A bit of Contract Law 101: even where a contract is enforceable, the type of enforcement varies. Some things are appropriate for "specific enforcement" -- which means that you can hold the people involved to actually following through on their contractual obligations -- and other things are not. The example most commonly given in law schools for the types of contracts that generally are NOT specifically enforceable are contracts for specialized services; my first year contracts teacher taught us that even if you have an enforceable contract with an opera company to put on Aida, if the lead diva refuses to perform you simply can't make her sing. This does not mean that you don't have an enforceable contract, nor does it mean that you have no way to enforce the contract -- but your method of enforcement is limited to seeking monetary damages for the breach (for example, compensation for lost ticket sales and for rental of the performance hall, as well as for damage to professional reputation, etc) -- you cannot stand the diva up in front of the crowd and make her perform if she chooses not to.<br />
<br />
It is unclear to many of us practicing assisted reproduction law in states like California -- where gestational surrogacy is legal and gestational surrogacy contracts are enforceable -- exactly which parts of our surrogacy contracts are subject to specific enforcement and which are not. Our statutes and case law make clear that the parts of the contracts that specify who the parents are ARE specifically enforceable -- a surrogate who has entered into an enforceable Gestational Surrogacy Agreement cannot keep the baby, nor can the intended parents choose to walk away. But the parts of surrogacy contracts that address medical care for the surrogate -- what tests she will undergo while the baby is in utero, and certainly whether or not she will abort if there is a fetal anomaly -- are far less likely to be subject to specific enforcement. To put it bluntly, no woman is going to be forced to get an abortion against her will -- not in Connecticut, not in Michigan, and not in California. (For a more legal discussion of this topic, see my article "<a href="http://www.waldlaw.net/assets/files/ABA%20surrogacy%20article.10.2011.pdf">Surrogacy and a Pregnant Woman's Constitutional Right to Medical and Procreative Choice</a>," presented at an ABA meeting on assisted reproduction law in October, 2011.) Instead, if there is a breach that leads to financial damage to the non-breaching party, that party is likely going to be able to sue for monetary damages -- but nothing more.<br />
<br />
This is the reason that it is so critically important that (a) parties entering into surrogacy arrangements take the time to do diligence prior to an embryo being implanted, to make sure that the surrogate and the intended parents are 100% on the same page about the circumstances under which they will or will not abort a baby, and whose choice it will be; and (b) surrogacy contracts include Alternative Dispute Resolution provisions that force the parties to engage in meaningful mediation or other therapeutic interventions in a sincere attempt to resolve conflicts before they end up on CNN. <br />
<br />
Situations like the one involving Baby S, as the infant is being called, are heartbreaking. We all do our best to avoid them. And when they happen, we need to provide thoughtful support to all involved and learn everything we can about how they came to pass, so we can try to prevent more of them from happening in the future.<br />
<br />Deborah Waldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11207421219908117410noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13017653.post-3383350948034396292013-01-09T12:15:00.002-08:002013-01-09T16:04:31.788-08:00What Happens to Left-Over Embryos?Yet another court -- this time in <a href="http://greenbelt.patch.com/articles/judge-awards-maryland-woman-custody-of-frozen-embryos?national=patch&ncid=edlinkuspatc00000006">Maryland</a> -- has been called upon to decide what should become of frozen embryos remaining after the divorce of the couple who made them.<br />
<br />
Typically, these cases look like this: a husband and wife experiencing fertility issues have created embryos through an <em>in vitro</em> fertilization procedure. The embryos are cryopreserved and stored for future use. Then the couple splits up. One of them wants to go forward with using the embryos to conceive a child; the other wants the embryos destroyed.<br />
<br />
Often, use of the embryos is the final opportunity for the infertile husband or wife to have a child that is biologically related to him or her. Since the embryos were made, the wife may have become too old to produce viable eggs; or either husband or wife may have had their fertility destroyed by chemotherapy or other medical procedures. If the embryos are destroyed, a potential father or mother will forever lose her/his chance to become a parent to his/her own biological child. <br />
<br />
And yet....<br />
<br />
If the couple created the embryos together, as husband and wife, and if one of the spouses (usually the wife) goes forward with conceiving a child by use of those embryos, won't the husband be the father of that child? Is it fair to ask a man who is now divorced from his former wife to be the father of a child she conceives after the marriage and against his will? Is he liable for child support? Should he be?<br />
<br />
These cases raise daunting issues both legally and ethically. As attorneys, it is hard to know how to advise our clients. So, as with all such issues, I ask: how could these cases best be avoided?<br />
<br />
Fertility clinics owe it to their patients to do a much better job on medical consent forms for assisted reproduction procedures. Typically, these forms are prepared by medical malpractice attorneys who have little or no knowledge of family law, for the purpose of protecting the clinic from future malpractice claims. Couples would be well advised to consult <a href="http://www.aaarta.org/fellows.htm">knowledgeable assisted reproduction attorneys</a> before signing these forms, to make sure they fully understand the consequences of the choices they're making about future disposition of their genetic material. The costs of these legal consultations are nothing in comparison to the costs -- both emotionally and financially -- of litigation like that currently going on in Maryland.<br />
<br />Deborah Waldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11207421219908117410noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13017653.post-16566507444909050782013-01-05T13:46:00.000-08:002013-01-05T13:46:22.333-08:00Why the Kansas Sperm Donor Case Isn't NewsI have been astonished, over the past week, to see the case where a Kansas sperm donor is being held responsible for financially supporting the child conceived with his sperm all over the news. Stories about this case have run everywhere from the Wall Street Journal to the <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/04/sperm-donor_n_2408580.html?utm_hp_ref=politics">Huffington Post</a> to tabloids.<br />
<br />
Predictably, I have started receiving alarmed calls and emails from clients who are involved in sperm donation arrangements, wondering if they should be worried. For the most part, the answer is a resounding NO. Here's why:<br />
<br />
(1) Kansas law on sperm donation is almost identical to California law on sperm donation. It makes clear that a man who provides his sperm to a physician for purposes of inseminating any woman other than the man's wife is legally a sperm donor and not a father. Anyone who wants to be a sperm donor, and therefore to be safe from liability for child support, just has to follow this law. In California that means doing the sperm donation through any licensed physician or sperm bank -- of which there are many. Had the folks in Kansas used a doctor to assist with the insemination, this case would never have happened. Anyone who has seen an assisted reproduction attorney for advice prior to inseminating should know this. And finding an assisted reproduction attorney in most states is easy: just go to the website for the <a href="http://new.aaarta.org/directory">American Academy of Assisted Reproductive Technology Attorneys</a> (AAARTA) and there is a state-by-state listing.<br />
<br />
(2) Most states have a preference that a child have two legal parents -- to provide care and support for the child -- but in many states, they don't care who the two parents are. Had the folks in the Kansas case lived in California (or in about 20 other states throughout the country), even though they did not use a physician to assist them with the insemination, they could have completed a 2nd parent adoption after the baby was born in which the second mom became a legal parent and the donor's rights were terminated. Sadly, because Kansas does not currently provide a way for two women both to be recognized as parents of the same child, this option wasn't available to the parties now involved in this high-profile mess.<br />
<br />
And by the way, this has nothing to do with marriage equality. I have seen a number of articles reporting that the second mother in this case isn't legally responsible for the child because of Kansas's constitutional amendment providing that only different-sex couples can marry. This is mixing apples and oranges -- the two women could both be recognized as parents without being married, just like kids can have a mother and a father regardless of whether mom and dad are married. Kansas needs to find a way to allow children being raised by same-sex couples to have two legal parents of the same sex -- typically through 2nd parent adoption -- whether or not it wants to allow same-sex couples to wed.<br />
<br />
One more point: it is the responsibility of Departments of Child Support Services throughout the country -- in fact, it is their mandate -- to find parents to hold financially responsible for children wherever possible, rather than having those children's care fall on the taxpayers. The Kansas Department of Child Support Services is simply doing their job. As far as I can tell, they are not the "bad guys" here.<br />
<br />
The problems highlighted by the Kansas case have simple solutions: (1) people becoming parents through assisted reproduction need to understand the laws of the states in which they live -- and then follow them; and (2) states need to make it simpler for people parenting children -- including same-sex couples -- to take legal responsibility for those children. With those two changes, cases like this would never again need to happen.Deborah Waldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11207421219908117410noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13017653.post-12156349807555712622012-11-07T12:02:00.003-08:002012-11-07T12:02:41.561-08:00What a Difference A Decade Makes!I will always remember the 2004 presidential election. That was the year that voters chose to send George W. Bush back to the White House instead of electing John Kerry. As part of that same election, 13 states voted to amend their constitutions to clarify that same-sex couples could not marry -- a gratuitous act of meanness, from my perspective, given that same-sex couples already were not allowed to marry in any of those states. The issue of marriage equality was seen as a pivotal campaign issue, which galvanized conservative voters to turn out to vote, and helped Bush win a second term. Lesbian and gay couples who had fought for the right to marry were held somewhat responsible for Kerry's defeat.<br />
<br />
For the past 8 years, every election cycle issues surrounding the rights of lesbian and gay couples and families have been hauled out, dusted off, and used for political purposes by one party or the other -- and often by both. Should same-sex couples be allowed to marry? Should same-sex couples be allowed to provide foster homes for, or adopt, children? These issues have been used as political fodder far too many times, in far too many elections, and for all the wrong reasons.<br />
<br />
I woke up this morning to find that the voters of two -- and maybe three -- states (Maryland, Maine, and maybe Washington) had passed ballot initiatives in favor of full marriage equality for their lesbian and gay citizens. Another state -- Minnesota -- defeated a constitutional amendment that would have prevented marriage rights from being extended to same-sex couples. And a President who has openly stated his belief that same-sex couples should be allowed to wed was reelected by a considerable margin.<br />
<br />
It is a complicated moment in our country's history. There are very serious challenges ahead -- economically, politically, environmentally. It wouldn't have been easy for Romney to preside over the next four years, and it certainly won't be easy for Obama. But here is my hope, coming out of the 2012 election: that politicians around the country have just learned that demonizing lesbians and gay men, and our families, no longer helps win elections. If we have evolved to that point, that, in and of itself, is cause for celebration.Deborah Waldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11207421219908117410noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13017653.post-61117095678376273192012-10-01T13:31:00.002-07:002012-10-01T13:46:28.984-07:00New California Assisted Reproduction Bills Signed Into Law!In the past week, <a href="http://gov.ca.gov/m_about.php">Governor Brown</a> has signed two separate assisted reproduction bills into law. The first, AB 1217, addresses surrogacy arrangements; and the second, AB 2356, addresses testing requirements for sperm donation.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/11-12/bill/asm/ab_1201-1250/ab_1217_bill_20120923_chaptered.pdf">AB 1217</a> provides guidance, for the first time in California history, on what information needs to be included in the written agreement governing a gestational surrogacy arrangement. It is pretty straightforward, but does include a few things that may not be standard to all surrogacy facilitation programs and attorneys. For example, the bill provides that the signatures of all parties to the surrogacy agreement must be <em>notarized</em>. In addition, it provides that the surrogate is <em>not</em> to start on cycle medications until the agreement has been fully executed.<br />
<br />
Useful to ART attorneys as well as the families we serve, the bill sets out some specific rules for surrogacy parentage actions. Under this new law, a surrogacy action can be filed pre-birth and can be filed in the county where the child is expected to be born, in the county where the surrogate lives, in the county where the intended parents live, in the county where the surrogacy agreement was executed, or in the county where the surrogacy medical procedures are to be performed. It will be great to have all these options, as some counties are far more efficient than others in processing these uncontested court cases! <br />
<br />
Most importantly, from my perspective, the bill clarifies that a surrogate and the intended parent or parents "shall be represented by separate independent licensed attorneys of their own choosing." I have long taken issue with some surrogacy facilitators who either take the position that surrogates do not need to have their own attorneys, or who require the parties to work with attorneys of the facilitator's choosing (as opposed to of the parties' choosing). It is wonderful for agencies to provide surrogates and intended parents with the names of qualified counsel, but ultimately every client has a right to choose their own attorney under State Bar rules. It will be useful to have this in print, as actual <em>law</em>.<br />
<br />
While leaving much of the details to attorneys, agencies and clinics -- as well as to the women and men actually engaging in surrogacy -- this bill helps set some basic ground rules for surrogacy endeavors in California, and as such should be quite helpful.<br />
<br />
The second bill, <a href="http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/11-12/bill/asm/ab_2351-2400/ab_2356_bill_20120224_introduced.html">AB 2356</a>, addresses an inequity in sperm donor testing requirements. The Food & Drug Administration (FDA) currently requires that sperm donors undergo rigorous testing, which must be completed within 7 days of any proposed sperm donation. However, there is an <a href="http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfcfr/CFRSearch.cfm?fr=1271.90">exception to this rule if the sperm donor is a "sexually intimate partner" of the recipient</a> -- in which case, the testing requirements are far less rigorous, and therefore also far less expensive. The phrase "sexually intimate partner" is not defined anywhere in the FDA regulations.<br />
<br />
The presumed (and clearly legitimate) purpose of the FDA's testing requirements is to assure that medical facilities are not exposing women to a donor's sperm unless there is assurance that either (a) the sperm is disease free, and/or (b) the woman has already voluntarily exposed herself to the sperm in a non-medical setting, in which case medical insemination will pose no additional risk to her health. However, the "sexually intimate partner" language was being interpreted by most medical providers to mean that the woman and the donor needed to have actually <em>had sex</em> before the more stringent testing requirements could be waived -- which, frankly, does not seem like any of the FDA's business. So California has now statutorily defined the phrase "sexually intimate partner" to refer to "a donor to whose sperm the recipient has previously been exposed in a nonmedical setting in an attempt to conceive." This definition will allow single women and lesbian couples who are attempting pregnancy with the help of known sperm donors to access fertility assistance as necessary <em>without</em> incurring the major expense of having their donors retested every cycle, as long as the women have tried to conceive at home at least once (thereby "exposing themselves to the donor's sperm in a nonmedical setting in an attempt to conceive").<br />
<br />
It wasn't many years ago that there was absolutely no guidance available in the California Family Code on issues of assisted reproduction. Both of these new bills should help clarify issues of concern to people involved in assisted reproduction; and both bills also once again put California in the forefront of national efforts to make sure that assisted reproduction is handled both safely and ethically.<br />
<br />Deborah Waldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11207421219908117410noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13017653.post-57316739403587708202012-09-16T15:42:00.001-07:002012-09-16T15:51:19.088-07:00Lost At SeaI have been very troubled by recent articles about a Bay Area father (Christopher Maffei) who absconded with his two young children ages 2 and 3, stole a yacht, and set out to sea. He was out on the ocean solo with his kids for several days before finally surrendering to the FBI and Coast Guard, and while interviews with him suggest that he took appropriate supplies with him and took precautions to keep his kids safe, this behavior undoubtedly put his kids in harm's way.<br />
<br />
That said, I have been sorry that so little attention has been paid to the question: "what caused this man -- by all accounts a generally sane and loving father -- to do something so extreme?!"<br />
<br />
As one of the few attorneys in the Bay Area who regularly litigates parentage cases, I have had the opportunity to spend time with quite a few devoted parents who have been faced with the possibility of losing a child because the child's other parent has decided they should no longer have contact. These are horrible cases, and the stakes are as high as any I faced when I was in the Alameda County Public Defender's Office. It is hard to think of anything more awful than the prospect of losing one's child. Sadly, many parents react to this threat in ways that ultimately jeopardize their relationships with their children -- as did Mr. Maffei.<br />
<br />
The children's mother admitted to the media that she has been sharing custody with Mr. Maffei, and that the kids love him, but that she had recently told him he couldn't see his kids any more until he got an apartment and a job. She had then stopped anwering his phone calls. She asks: "Who in their right mind would go out alone on a boat with two toddlers?'" (To read the full article, go to: <a href="http://www.sfgate.com/crime/article/Kids-recovered-after-abduction-police-say-3847831.php#ixzz26fn6GEM0" style="color: #003399;">http://www.sfgate.com/crime/article/Kids-recovered-after-abduction-police-say-3847831.php#ixzz26fn6GEM0</a>.)<br />
<br />
Who, indeed. Just maybe a man who loves his children, who has been told he can't see them again and who KNOWS that using them as leverage to try to get him to behave differently is wrong. Who KNOWS that his children, ages 2 and 3, will not know where he is and will think he has abandoned them. Who KNOWS that a good parent does not work out issues with his or her co-parent by withholding contact with the kids.<br />
<br />
I AM NOT defending Mr. Maffei. He absolutely should NEVER have taken his kids, stolen a boat, and set off to sea. That was, indeed, irresponsible and crazy. But I submit that Ms. Hipon also should NEVER have cut off visitation between a loving father and his children as a way of making a point about money or lifestyle. That, too, was irresponsible, and I fear that in the long run the kids will be the ones who suffer the consequences.<br />
<br />
(For Mr. Maffei's comments on why he did what he did, see: <a href="http://www.sfgate.com/default/article/Calif-father-accused-of-taking-2-kids-speaks-out-3860015.php">http://www.sfgate.com/default/article/Calif-father-accused-of-taking-2-kids-speaks-out-3860015.php</a>.)<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />Deborah Waldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11207421219908117410noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13017653.post-87212195874063754062012-09-12T12:07:00.000-07:002012-09-12T13:05:22.223-07:00I'm Back!It's been WAY too long since I've posted -- another very busy and eventful year, both professionally and personally. I won't bore any of you with details. In fact, I think I'll take some advice from San Francisco Giants ace relief pitcher <a href="http://sanfrancisco.giants.mlb.com/team/player.jsp?player_id=489265">Sergio Romo</a>. <br />
<br />
In yesterday's <a href="http://www.sfgate.com/default/article/Romo-won-t-recall-Hanley-Ramirez-s-HRs-3854892.php">San Francisco Chronicle</a>, Romo was asked his feelings about new Dodger Hanley Ramirez having hit home runs off him the last two times they faced each other. Sergio's response: <br />
<br />
"If I keep thinking about it and keep bringing it back, that means I believe it actually happened," he said. "In my head, it didn't happen. I forgot about it. That's pretty much the mind-set I've had."<br />
<br />
So if I wrote about why I hadn't found time to blog for the past year, that would mean it actually happened. Which it didn't.... <br />
<br />
<br />
<br />Deborah Waldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11207421219908117410noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13017653.post-40591910349204600152011-08-05T15:11:00.000-07:002011-08-05T15:36:37.201-07:00Protection of Parent-Child Relationships Act Signed into Law!The <a href="http://www.eqca.org/site/apps/nlnet/content2.aspx?c=kuLRJ9MRKrH&b=5609563&ct=11104763&notoc=1">Protection of Parent-Child Relationships Act</a> (AB 1349) was signed into law this morning by California Governor Jerry Brown. Having helped write this bill -- and having worked for two years to get it passed -- I couldn't be more pleased.<br />
<br />
<em>WARNING -- the following explanation is legally complex. Take a deep breath before reading. And let me know if you don't understand!</em><br />
<br />
This Act amends California parentage law in two important ways:<br />
<br />
(1) When an unmarried woman gives birth to a child, she has the opportunity to name the child's father and he can be listed on the child's birth certificate if -- and only if -- he and she sign something called a <a href="http://www.childsup.ca.gov/Portals/0/cp/docs/cs909_english.pdf">Voluntary Declaration of Paternity</a> (VDP). The form must be witnessed and filed with the state Department of Social Services. Once that process is completed, the man is the legal father for all purposes, and the VDP is treated the same as a Judgment of paternity rendered by a court. But there's a catch. Before a court will adjudicate paternity, they are required to make certain that every person with a claim to parentage of the child has received notice and had an opportunity to be heard. This is called due process. But no notice is required in order to file a VDP. So a mother can have the biological father sign a VDP even though another person has already assumed a parental role and taken full responsibility for the child, without any notice to the other person who has been acting as a parent.<br />
<br />
Prior to the passage of AB 1349, there was no way to set aside a VDP unless it later turned out that the declared father was not actually the biological father. So a man or woman who raised a child, along with the child's biological mother, could be removed from that child's life at any point by the mother finding the biological father, getting him to sign a VDP with her, and filing it with the Department of Social Services. The non-biological parent was left with no recourse, and no standing to even seek continued visitation with the child.<br />
<br />
California is a state that has long recognized that the social relationship of parent and child is often more important than the biological relationship of parent and child. Where the person who has raised a child is not the genetic parent, the courts often will protect the established parent-child relationship, even in the face of a challenge by the genetic parents. The VDP process, as it existed until today, created a serious loophole in this principle.<br />
<br />
Now, with the Protection of Parent-Child Relationships Act having been signed into law, where a child has a biological father who has signed a VDP, but has been raised by someone else who has acted in every way as a parent, the courts will have the discretion to dig into the facts and figure out which person is best suited to be in the legal role of "parent." The courts will no longer automatically have to default to genetics, if this result would not be in a child's best interest.<br />
<br />
(2) California law distinguishes between fathers and sperm donors. A sperm donor is a man who provides his sperm to a physician or sperm bank, for purposes of insemination or <em>in vitro</em> fertilization of a woman other than the donor's wife. A father is a man who impregnates a woman in any other way (i.e. without physician involvement -- whether through assisted insemination or through sex). <br />
<br />
In our modern world, there are many men providing their sperm to physicians or sperm banks for purposes of impregnating a woman other than the man's wife, who in fact intend to be fathers to the children whose conception results from the process. Some examples: married couples who find themselves unable to sustain a pregnancy on their own often provide both eggs and sperm to a physician, which eggs and sperm are used to create embryos through an <em>in vitro</em> fertilization process. The embryos are then implanted into the womb of a gestational carrier (surrogate). Under this scenario, the husband has provided his sperm to a physician for purposes of <em>in vitro</em> fertilization of a woman other than his wife, but with the full intention of being a father of any resulting child. Likewise, any time an unmarried heterosexual couple needs medical assistance to conceive, the man will be providing his sperm to a physician. Paternity is not determined by the marital status of the parents in sexual reproduction; it also should not be determined by the marital status of the parents in medically assisted reproduction.<br />
<br />
The Protection of Parent-Child Relationships Act amends our Family Code to allow a man who provides sperm to a physician or sperm bank to still be a father, even though he is not married to the woman who will be impregnated with the sperm, as long as he and the recipient sign an agreement prior to impregnation that clearly states their mutual intention that he be a father.<br />
<br />
California family law is complicated, particularly when it comes to figuring out who "parents" are in our modern world. AB 1349 will go a long way to assuring that children's legal relationships with their parents are protected, regardless of how the parent-child relationship came into being.<br />
<br />
Thanks to the <a href="http://www.nclrights.org/">National Center for Lesbian Rights</a>, <a href="http://www.eqca.org/">Equality California</a>, the <a href="http://acal.org/">Academy of California Adoption Lawyers</a>, attorney <a href="http://www.goodmanmetz.com/">Diane Goodman</a> and my beloved ex-client <a href="http://outwithmommy.wordpress.com/2010/03/12/update-on-santa-cruz-case-smith-v-quale/">Kim Smith</a> for their help in turning this hope for California children into a reality!Deborah Waldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11207421219908117410noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13017653.post-38037711457524207662011-08-03T15:48:00.000-07:002011-08-03T15:48:06.291-07:00Adoption Tax Credit & Second Parent AdoptionsWell, sorry to say, it now appears that the Adoption Tax Credit audit that I wrote about in late June is leading to an unprecedented number of denials of the credit to lesbians and gay men who have completed second parent adoptions around the country.<br />
<br />
A number of attorneys who work with LGBT families around the country have been discussing this issue, and tax professor Pat Cain has provided some suggestions for how best to respond to the IRS. Rather than reprinting her thoughts here, I am simply linking to her own blog on the subject.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.law.scu.edu/blog/samesextax/">http://www.law.scu.edu/blog/samesextax/</a><br />
<br />
If you have received a letter from the IRS disallowing your adoption tax credit, following completion of a second parent adoption, PLEASE send a letter to the IRS questioning their decision. If they still do not approve your credit, please contact <a href="http://www.nclrights.org/site/PageServer?pagename=about_contactus">NCLR</a>.Deborah Waldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11207421219908117410noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13017653.post-42763436267997132092011-07-13T14:11:00.000-07:002011-07-13T14:11:23.509-07:00When Married for Life Means ... Married FOR LIFE<span style="color: black; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">On July 24, 2011, New York will become the sixth state in the country to allow same-sex couples to wed. Given that New York already is a popular destination for people from all over the United States and the world, it is not hard to imagine same-sex couples streaming into New York from places near and far to exchange their vows of marriage. </span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: black; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The beginning of same-sex nuptials in New York is historic, and is cause for celebration -- for what it says about social acceptance and equality, as much as for the actual ability of same-sex couples to marry.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: black; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">But as a family law attorney, and someone who is involved in family policy work on a national level, I am worried about couples getting caught up in the excitement of the moment, and flying off to New York to marry without truly thinking through the legal consequences of that choice. </span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: black; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">A quick lesson about jurisdiction: Before you can go into the courts of any state to ask for relief of any kind, those courts have to have <em>jurisdiction</em> -- "subject matter" jurisdiction over the issue that brings you before the court, plus "personal" jurisdiction over the parties.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: black; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Getting married does not require any type of court action. It is a clerical act. So the courts of a state do not need to have jurisdiction for a couple to get married in that state. A different-sex couple can get married in any of the 50 states, regardless of where they live; and a same-sex couple can get married in any of the 6 states that now allow same-sex couples to marry, regardless of where they live.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: black; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">But divorce requires court action. So the courts must have <em>jurisdiction</em> before they can adjudicate a divorce.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="color: black;">This means that a same-sex couple from, say, Indiana, can travel to any of the six states that now allow same-sex couples to marry, and can get married there without any problem. But then that couple presumably will return to Indiana. And Indiana does not recognize same-sex marriages. Which means that if that couple later needs a divorce, there is a strong chance that the Indiana courts will not be willing to divorce them (because the courts of many states are refusing to recognize same-sex marriages, even for purposes of divorce). And the courts of the state where they married will not have jurisdiction unless at least one of the spouses establishes residency in that state; for example, the New York courts will not have jurisdiction to divorce a couple married in New York unless at least one of the parties has actually lived in New York for a minimum of one year.</span></span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: black; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">So while we all are celebrating the spread of equality around the country, it is important to remember that <em>marriage</em> is, fundamentally, a deeply personal <em>and legal</em> commitment to a long term relationship with an intimate partner. It is a commitment that is meant to be "for life" -- and in the case of same-sex couples traveling outside their home state to marry, it may truly be FOR LIFE. </span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial;">So mazel tov to all the happy couples exchanging marriage vows in New York next weekend. But <em>please</em> don't get married just because you <em>can</em>. Remember that marriage is a legal commitment that it is hard to get out of, and make sure it is the right choice for you and your beloved before you take the leap.</span>Deborah Waldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11207421219908117410noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13017653.post-68515868882983954192011-06-25T11:38:00.000-07:002011-06-25T11:39:42.352-07:00Adoption Tax Credit AuditsThis is a head's up to all of you out there who have claimed an adoption tax credit in recent years and have now received an audit form from the IRS. It appears that the IRS is doing across-the-board audits of many, if not all, adoption tax credit claims. These <em>are not</em> personalized audits -- they are a form audit, being sent out to many, many people claiming the credit. My understanding is that they are part of a process whereby the IRS is reviewing the scope and functionality of the adoption tax credit itself -- they are not, in fact, aimed at individual tax-payers.<br />
<br />
This is not to say that you should not take these audits seriously. Frankly, I recommend taking <em>anything</em> the IRS does seriously! But you should not take them <em>personally</em>. If you received one of these audits, you are not being targeted any more than anyone else who claimed the credit in recent years.<br />
<br />
And for folks <em>PLANNING</em> on claiming the credit, this is yet another reminder that it is important to keep good records. Put all receipts, cancelled checks, invoices, etc in a folder clearly marked "adoption expenses," and then try to remember where you put that folder. Even though you are adjusting to being a parent, and may not know where your socks are. ;) This will make it much less stressful if/when it is your turn to answer to an audit like the one now underway.<br />
<br />
Just thought folks would want to know....Deborah Waldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11207421219908117410noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13017653.post-31794918923248840482011-04-14T14:46:00.000-07:002011-04-17T10:18:04.230-07:00A Monumental Week for Family Formation Law!Here is a brief head's up about three major legal news items in the fields in which I practice law:<br />
<br />
(1) ARKANSAS ADOPTION DECISION: On April 7, 2011, the Arkansas Supreme Court struck down the state ban on fostering or adoption by cohabiting unmarried couples. To briefly recap: On November 4, 2008 -- the same date that Obama was elected President and Proposition 8 passed in California -- a ballot initiative was approved by a simple majority (57%) of Arkansas voters titled "An Act Providing That an Individual Who is Cohabiting Outside of a Valid Marriage May Not Adopt or Be a Foster Parent of a Child Less Than Eighteen Years Old." Under the Act, an individual was prohibited from being an adoptive or foster parent if that individual was "cohabiting with a sexual partner outside of a marriage that is valid under the Arkansas Constitution and the laws of this state." (Although the law applied equally to unmarried same-sex couples and unmarried different-sex couples, it clearly had a disparate impact on same-sex couples because they are unable to enter into "a marriage that is valid under the ... laws of [Arkansas].")<br />
<br />
The Arkansas Supreme Court found that this Act unconstitutionally infringed on the fundamental right to privacy implicit in the Arkansas Constitution, because it required the government to inquire into the private, consensual, intimate sexual conduct of adults applying to be foster or adoptive parents, as a precondition to approving the placement of children in their home. The Court determined that individualized home studies -- required of all applicants to foster or adopt children -- were sufficient to address the needs of the state's children, and that a blanket policy prohibiting fostering or adoption by cohabiting adults was overbroad and impermissibly invaded Constitutionally-protected privacy rights. This is an important and well-written <a href="http://opinions.aoc.arkansas.gov/WebLink8/0/doc/60137/Electronic.aspx">decision</a>, which is well worth the read for anyone interested. <br />
<br />
(2) LOUISIANA BIRTH CERTIFICATE/ADOPTION DECISION: Late Tuesday, April 12, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, based in Louisiana, issued a shocking <a href="http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/09/09-30036-CV2.wpd.pdf">decision</a> that the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the United States Constitution does not require states to issue new birth certificates for children born in their states but adopted elsewhere, if the out-of-state adoption is not of a type allowed under the birth state's laws. (FYI, see this <a href="http://www.uscourts.gov/court_locator.aspx">map</a> for an explanation of which states are in which federal Circuit.) <br />
<br />
This case was brought on behalf of a gay couple from New York who adopted a child born in Louisiana. The couple adopted the child in New York, where the adoption was completely legal. Because Louisiana law does not allow unmarried couples to jointly adopt children, the Registrar of Births in Louisiana -- charged with issuing birth certificates for Louisiana-born children -- refused to issue a new birth certificate with both fathers' names on it (although she did offer to issue a new, post-adoptive birth certificate with <em>one of</em> the adoptive father's names on it if they wanted her to, since Louisiana law does not prohibit adoptions by single people). The U.S. Court of Appeals upheld this decision by the Registrar -- overturning the lower court's ruling in favor of the couple and child -- finding that while the Full Faith and Credit Clause requires recognition of both parents as legal parents based on the New York adoption, it <em>does not require</em> that Louisiana issue a new birth certificate evidencing that recognition. <br />
<br />
The court engaged in what I will frankly characterize as an appalling discussion of why it is okay for a state to blatantly discriminate against children adopted by unmarried couples -- as opposed to children adopted by married couples -- by refusing to provide the prior category of children with birth certificates that accurately reflect their parents. The explanation for this discrimination -- which seems to have recreated a distinction between "legitimate" and "illegitimate" children that was ruled unconstitutional by our United States Supreme Court back in the '70's -- is that "Louisiana may rationally conclude that having parenthood focused on a married couple or single individual -- not on the freely severable relationship of unmarried partners -- furthers the interests of adopted children." Since issuing a birth certificate apparently evidences state <em>approval</em> (as opposed to simply <em>recognition</em>) of the adoption, and since Louisiana does not "approve" of adoptions by unmarried couples, they can refuse to do so.<br />
<br />
(3) EGG DONATION LAW SUIT: As if these two major decisions weren't enough to digest in one week, I arrived in my office this morning to word that a <a href="http://classactionlawsuitsinthenews.com/class-action-lawsuit-complaints/human-egg-donor-services-antitrust-class-action-lawsuit-complaint/">class action lawsuit</a> has just been filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California challenging the efforts of the <a href="http://www.asrm.org/">American Society for Reproductive Medicine</a> (ASRM) and the <a href="http://www.sart.org/">Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology</a> (SART) to set maximum compensation parameters for commercial egg donation. According to the complaint, ASRM and SART are engaging in "price fixing" in violation of federal anti-trust laws. Questions posed by the complaint include: "Whether Defendant Class Members engaged in a contract, combination or conspiracy among themselves to fix, maintain, or stabilize the price of Donor Services in the United States?" The plaintiffs acknowledge that the purpose of the ASRM guidelines is to assure that the financial incentives young women are offered to engage in egg donation "should not be so excessive as to constitute undue inducement."<br />
<br />
The area of egg donation is rife with ethical dilemmas. Now we have to think about this new dilemma -- whether a "free market economy" approach to tissue donation is appropriate and, if not, how to control this process without violating anti-trust laws. Stay tuned for updates as this plays out.<br />
<br />
It's only Thursday. Could there possibly be more to come??Deborah Waldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11207421219908117410noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13017653.post-55084469392030665682011-04-04T06:55:00.000-07:002011-04-14T14:49:54.002-07:00The Circle GameDo any of you remember the beautiful, haunting song by Joni Mitchell called "<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vdLj2G4laME">The Circle Game</a>"? It addresses the circles of life, as children grow up and elders grow old. My friend Judy and I used to sing it to our kids when they were little. Now those kids are looking at colleges, and Judy died of breast cancer almost a year ago. <em>"And the seasons, they go round and round/And the painted ponies go up and down/We're captive on the carousel of time./We can't return, we can only look behind from where we came/And go round and round and round in the Circle Game."</em> <br />
<br />
This song seems to capture the moment that I -- and many of my friends and colleagues -- are finding ourselves in -- watching our children grow up and out; watching our parents grow old and pass away. I am thinking these thoughts, and writing this blog, from 36027 feet, as I jet my way home from Boston on Virgin America (and thank you, Virgin, for the in-air wifi option, that allows me to use the 6.25 hours in the sky productively!). <br />
<br />
I have been in Boston for the past week, on a true "Circle Game" journey. Here's a brief recap: Last Tuesday morning, I got up at the crack of dawn to catch a flight to New Haven, CT (via Philadelphia) to meet my son there. Travel observations of note: Contrary to predictions, I <em>did not</em> get assaulted in the Philly airport, even though I was wearing a cozy and attractive <em>San Francisco Giants World Champions</em> sweatshirt. Beyond that, the only noteworthy thing about the actual trip to New Haven was the <em>propeller plane</em> on which I flew from Philly to New Haven. I honestly didn't even know they still had propeller planes in service! Anyway, me and about 38 of my new best friends -- instantly bonded to each other by the shared experience of actually being expected to board a plane that looked like it had been flying pretty much non-stop since the 50's and was probably due for a long rest -- enjoyed a calm and uneventful (and blessedly short!) flight, arriving in New Haven in just under an hour. So much for the trip itself.... <br />
<br />
Why was I headed to New Haven? This is where the Circle Game part of the story begins. <br />
<br />
My elder son is a Junior in high school, which means that it is time to start thinking seriously about where he might want to go to college. So, for spring break, we did the almost-mandatory spring-break-of-Junior-year college tour. For a variety of reasons, we ended up touring some of the New England schools of note: Columbia, NYU, Yale, Wesleyan, Brown, Harvard, Boston University, Tufts and Northeastern. Nine colleges in six days -- quite a whirlwind! But what a wonderful opportunity for both my son and me to get a sense of what college is like in 2011 -- to get a much clearer picture of the range of academic options out there -- and to start to get a read on the types of schools where he will thrive. It was exciting -- for both me and my son -- to see him on these college campuses, young and smart and healthy and excited about launching the next chapter of his life. Very much a forward-looking experience. <br />
<br />
Our tour ended in Boston and Cambridge. Cambridge is where I grew up, and my mother still lives there. My brother currently is living in neighboring Medford, where he is getting his PhD at Tufts. I went to law school at Northeastern University in Boston. So visits to Boston tend to be trips down memory lane, as well as opportunities to catch up with people from my past who remain in the area. This time, the interspersing of college tours with visits to family and friends who remain in and around Boston, crystallized the forward-looking/backward-looking moment that I, and many of my peers, are in. My mother slipped and fell over the weekend of March 26-27, fracturing a hip for the second time in 5 months (the <em>other </em>hip from the one she fractured over Halloween weekend so that now, all of a sudden, what was her "bad" leg has become her "good" leg). Visits with mom this time around were in the hospital and then in rehab. Because she's 87 and hospitalized -- and therefore seriously thinking about the end of her life on this earth -- these visits involved a lot of reminiscing and active wondering about how her life story will end. Very much a backward-looking experience. <br />
<br />
College campus -- hospital -- college campus -- rehab. Are you getting the idea?? <br />
<br />
It is an amazing experience watching the many, varied ways our elders find to exit this earth. My grandfather -- physically weak after multiple serious heart attacks -- found the gumption to get himself all the way from Cambridge, Massachusetts to a small town in the Austrian Alps where he had lived before being forced to flee by the Nazis. Once there, he died in his sleep within just a few days. My grandmother, whip smart and fiercely independent to the end, died in a fall returning to her bedroom from her bathroom at the age of 96, having walked past a portable commode, a walker and several canes -- all set out to avoid her making middle-of-the-night treks to the toilet without proper precautions. My beloved father died of what can only be described as old age, at 90, with his body and mind simultaneously drifting into a decline that afforded him the luxury of not having to comprehend that he was going while he was on his way out. My mother now appears also to be in a significant decline, but she has the misfortune that her head and her body are not fully in synch, so she still has the mental capacity to understand that she is losing her physical and cognitive abilities and is left feeling depressed and out of control. <br />
<br />
Practicing family law as I do, I spend my days helping people navigate some of the major, vulnerable moments in their lives. Having babies. Getting divorced. This trip was a reminder of some of the other major life transitions that I don't see as much in the office -- those that come when our children are grown enough to venture out of the nest and find their own way; and those that come at the end of life, when our bodies and minds start looking for ways to finish the story. <em>"So the years spin by and now the boy is twenty/Though his dreams have lost some grandeur coming true/There'll be new dreams, maybe better dreams and plenty/Before the last revolving year is through./And the seasons they go round and round/And the painted ponies go up and down/We're captive on the carousel of time./We can't return, we can only look behind/From where we came/And go round and round and round/In the Circle Game."</em>Deborah Waldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11207421219908117410noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13017653.post-24648408783911250732010-11-22T11:11:00.000-08:002011-04-17T10:21:30.711-07:00The Tragedy of Disrupted AdoptionsNovember is <a href="http://www.childwelfare.gov/adoption/nam/">National Adoption Month</a> -- "a month set aside each year to raise awareness about the adoption of children and youth from foster care." Ironic, then, that two adoption cases are making headlines for all the wrong reasons. <br />
<br />
In Missouri, in <a href="http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2010-11-16/adoption-nightmare-for-a-guatemalan-immigrant-and-missouri-couple/?cid=hp:mainpromo3">the case of a young boy named Carlos</a>, the state Supreme Court is being asked to intervene to set aside the adoption of a 4 year old child whose mother is an undocumented worker who was caught up in an immigration sweep at her work place and subsequently incarcerated. Although initially the child was cared for by an aunt, she was overwhelmed with the care of her own children and ended up giving him to another couple to care for in her sister's absence. This other couple subsequently surrendered him to their church to be placed for adoption, without ever notifying the mother (who remained in the United States, and easy to locate given that she was in custody) or obtaining her consent. The mother has always wanted her son, and there is no indication that she had been in any way negligent in her care of him -- the only reason she was separated from him was because she was taken into custody for being undocumented, while the child is a U.S. citizen. Now, the Missouri Supreme Court is being asked to reunite mother and son, albeit gradually through a responsible reunification plan -- ideally worked out in cooperation with the "adoptive" parents -- because he was never eligible for adoption in the first place, given that he had a fit mother who loved and wanted him. <br />
<br />
While Missouri sorts out the Baby Carlos mess, here in California we are witnessing an intense battle between an adoptive mother and a birth father, which is taking place in two states and on national television. In the <a href="http://www.nbclosangeles.com/station/as-seen-on/_Baby__Vanessa_Case_Headed_Back_to_Court_Los_Angeles-108287629.html">Baby Vanessa case</a>, a birth mother placed her baby for adoption at birth, through a licensed adoption agency and with all consents seemingly in order. However, the birth mother indicated that she did not have enough information to make it possible to identify the birth father, so his consent was never sought or obtained. Now it turns out that the birth father was, in fact, known to the birth mother and he is fighting for the child. Baby Vanessa is 2 years old and has been with the same person -- the adoptive mother -- since she was born. Now, she is in danger of being removed from that home because the birth father's rights to his daughter were never terminated, and he wants her back in Ohio where he can have a relationship with her. <br />
<br />
It is easy to take sides in these cases, and the media has certainly done so. Baby Carlos should be returned to his mother, because his mother was a loving fit parent who took good care of him for the first 6 months of his life and was torn from him through circumstances outside of her control. Baby Vanessa should stay with her adoptive mother because her adoptive mother has provided her with a loving and stable home from birth, and the father who is fighting for her has been convicted of abuse and lost custody of his other children, so is not realistically able to provide for Vanessa. <br />
<br />
But there are broader lessons to be learned from these two stories, that consistently apply to these and other disrupted adoption cases. No matter how wonderful an adoptive home seems, no court should be allowing an adoption to proceed without making as certain as possible that any living birth parents -- or potential birth parents -- have received proper notice and had an opportunity to be heard. Do they want the children? Are they actually fit to raise the children? And where, in all of this, do the children's rights to stable, loving homes and secure attachments come into play?? <br />
<br />
At the end of the day, in these and all adoption cases, there is simply no substitute for doing things right the first time, while these babies are still young and good decisions can be made without all the drama that accompanies efforts to fix adoption disasters later. So wherever Carlos and Vanessa end up, let's all make an effort to honor National Adoption Month by recommitting ourselves to adherence to proper adoption procedures -- and to a revamping of those procedures as necessary -- to assure that children's needs are met through the adoption process with an eye toward BOTH stability for the children and fairness for the birth parents, and with a fervent hope that there will be very few more cases like the two described above.Deborah Waldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11207421219908117410noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13017653.post-69636804717358822992010-10-29T12:29:00.000-07:002011-04-17T10:25:46.811-07:00How 'Bout Them Giants?!I admit it -- I'm a baseball fan. There are few things I'd rather do, on a summer afternoon or evening, than go to a baseball game. <br />
<br />
I am having A LOT of fun with this postseason, as my team wins first the division series, then the league championship, and now is up 2-0 in the World Series. I'm sure that it's exciting having your team in the World Series no matter where you live. But San Francisco really knows how to celebrate, and San Francisco has really embraced this band of colorful characters known as the Giants. They are so ... well, so San Francisco! From the seamless blend of Spanish and English heard on the field and in the clubhouse, to the red rally thong and the beards that have sprouted on every single relief pitcher's face, this band of boys (and many of them really are more boys than men -- our oldest starting pitcher is 27!) has won the hearts of San Franciscans young and old. <br />
<br />
The San Francisco Giants show their appreciation for this city in so many ways. There are ball games dedicated to the celebration of every cultural aspect of this city: Filipino Day, Latino Heritage Day, Lesbian & Gay Night, Marine Mammal Preservation Day, Halloween in July, and Dog Days at the Ballpark when the bleachers are opened up to people for whom a baseball game just wouldn't be complete without the company of their canine best friends. There is a <a href="http://sanfrancisco.giants.mlb.com/sf/ticketing/special_events/jerrygarcia.jsp">Jerry Garcia Tribute Night</a>, in honor of the Greatful Dead's legacy to our City by the Bay. The Negro League is honored every single day the ball park is open, with a stand full of Negro League memorabilia -- including baseball cards, t-shirts, etc -- that has proved both educational and fascinating to my sons. <br />
<br />
In return, San Francisco is showing our appreciation for our Giants in abundance right now, with many of the historic San Francisco buildings lit up orange at night. Driving across the Bay Bridge night-before-last, I was stunned and delighted to see Coit Tower glowing orange from top to bottom. Since I was driving, I couldn't take a picture. But last night we were at an event across the street from City Hall, and I couldn't resist this shot: <br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgfPJYasC61H3WyqKtjrjU1p3XORW5mu1j1iDrZBhsBwYfasqrtE2TIZ5JH-DeRr6i3EwAnk0LOlAwshw3BLZ1lTKB3mHrhvWARoWxZz0yTF89oVpZQSGFrINlp-zo5vQc_TxKnNA/s1600/City+Hall+in+Orange.JPG"><img alt="" border="0" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5533556692349615794" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgfPJYasC61H3WyqKtjrjU1p3XORW5mu1j1iDrZBhsBwYfasqrtE2TIZ5JH-DeRr6i3EwAnk0LOlAwshw3BLZ1lTKB3mHrhvWARoWxZz0yTF89oVpZQSGFrINlp-zo5vQc_TxKnNA/s320/City+Hall+in+Orange.JPG" style="cursor: hand; display: block; height: 240px; margin: 0px auto 10px; text-align: center; width: 320px;" /></a> It's an exciting moment to be in San Francisco. As our team flies to Texas for games 3, 4 and -- if necessary -- 5, the jubilance can be felt all over our city, on the street cars and in the shops and on the sidewalks. If you aren't too far away, it's worth coming for a visit -- especially in the evening, when the whole city seems to be glowing orange. And if you can't come by, well, cheer for us from wherever you are. It's been a rough few years in California, and we are savoring this happy moment. <br />
<br />
Go Giants!!Deborah Waldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11207421219908117410noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13017653.post-8791868366653332552010-10-08T15:06:00.000-07:002011-04-17T10:38:32.209-07:00The Times They Are A'Changin'Remember <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anita_Bryant">Anita Bryant</a>? The woman who led public campaigns featuring Florida orange juice and raging homophobia, her very own special Mimosa? In 1977, she was given credit for the successful repeal of an equal rights ordinance that had been passed by Miami/Dade County, and Florida has never been the same. Almost 30 years later, in 2004, the United States Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit found Florida's ban on adoptions by lesbians and gay men constitutional -- a ban that allowed children to be placed in foster care with fit lesbians and gay men, but denied these same children the permanency of adoptions by the people who had taken them in in their moments of need. Florida has never fully shaken off the enduring image of Anita Bryant. <br />
<br />
If you go to the website of the <a href="http://www.dcf.state.fl.us/contact/contact_FamilySafety1.shtml">Florida Department of Children and Families</a>, and look at their FAQ on who can adopt, you will find the following: "<em>There is no one description of people who can be prospective adoptive parents. If you have the ability to love a child, to provide the basics and to make a lifelong commitment, you can be an adoptive parent. A few things will prevent you from becoming an adoptive parent, such as certain felony criminal records. Section 63.042(3), Florida Statutes, states that 'no person eligible to adopt under this statute may adopt if that person is a homosexual.'</em>" Great. Felons and homosexuals. <br />
<br />
So it was with an overpowering sense of turning tides that I read the letter from the State of Florida Department of Children and Families to its Regional Directors that came across my desktop last week. The "subject" of the letter is "Third District Court of Appeal ruling on the state's ban on adoption by homosexuals as unconstitutional." Then, "Action Required": "<em>Discontinue asking potential adoptive parents their sexual orientation and update necessary forms deleting any reference to potential adoptive parents' sexual orientation.</em> DATE DUE: <strong>Effective immediately.</strong>" <br />
<br />
WOW. <br />
<br />
It gets better. As I skimmed down the memo, I came to the section headed "ACTION REQUIRED." It is too good to paraphrase, so I'm quoting: "Effective immediately, staff will discontinue asking prospective adoptive parents their sexual orientation including questioning whether they are heterosexual, homosexual, gay or lesbian. Staff should be instructed not to use this information as a factor in determining the suitability of applicants to adopt and <em>should focus his/her attention on the quality of parenting that prospective adoptive parents would provide, and their commitment to and love for our children</em>." <br />
<br />
What a concept -- to focus, in an investigation of suitability to adopt, on quality of parenting and commitment to the children, rather than on sexual orientation. It seems so obvious. But it has taken until now -- over 30 years after Anita Bryant's campaign -- for Florida to get there, and it is a <em>big deal</em>, given the particularly public history of anti-gay activity in that state. <br />
<br />
Hopefully, in this regard anyway, as Florida goes, so goes the Nation....Deborah Waldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11207421219908117410noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13017653.post-23519913997511758952010-09-08T15:56:00.000-07:002011-04-17T10:40:58.721-07:00What We Could Learn from Costa RicaI'm just back from a few days in the Costa Rican jungle, visiting my mother-in-law (yes, I am lucky to have a particularly interesting and adventurous mother-in-law). <br />
<br />
I went to Costa Rica directly following the national conference of the National LGBT Bar Association in Miami (commonly referred to as Lavender Law), where marriage equality and the recent California decision in <em>Perry v. Schwarzenegger </em>were on everyone's minds. In <em>Perry v. Schwarzenegger</em>, one of the primary issues being discussed is whether a majority of voters can vote to discriminate against a minority group regarding access to marriage. The "No on Prop 8" folks say that it undermines our constitutional democracy to allow a majority of voters to strip rights from a historically discriminated-against minority by popular vote; the "Yes on Prop 8" folks say that it undermines our constitutional democracy to allow the courts to override the will of the popular majority. <br />
<br />
And what does Costa Rica have to say about all this?? <br />
<br />
Well, it just so happens that Costa Rica -- long committed to their constitution and their record on human rights -- has just confronted this same issue. On August 10, 2010, the Supreme Court of Costa Rica <a href="http://jurist.org/paperchase/2010/08/costa-rica-high-court-removes-same-sex-civil-unions-from-ballot.php">ruled 5-2 to disallow a nationwide referendum</a> -- sponsored by the Catholic Church -- on whether Costa Rica should recognize same-sex civil unions. The court based its ruling on its concern that allowing the referendum to go forward would target gay Costa Ricans for discrimination and violate their rights under international law. The court further held that minority rights cannot be subject to majority approval. <br />
<br />
As liberal as Costa Rica is, it nevertheless amazes me that we -- in the United States -- may need to look south to our historically extremely Catholic Latin neighbors for guidance on how to promote equality for our lesbian and gay citizens.Deborah Waldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11207421219908117410noreply@blogger.com0