Montana Upholds Same-Sex Partner's Parental Rights
Categories: Adoption, In The News
Same-sex couples in Montana now have the same rights as married couples to pursue child custody in court.
The Montana Supreme Court, in a 6-1 ruling, upheld that right Tuesday. Justices decided a woman who shared responsibility for two adopted children with her former partner was entitled to parental rights.
Montana law does not allow same-sex couples to adopt children, so only one partner can legally be regarded as the adoptive parent. According to court documents, Barbara Maniaci and Michelle Kulstad agreed that Maniaci would be the adoptive parent on all the legal paperwork, but the two of them would raise the children together. As a result, Kulstad was not listed as the legal parent.
Some people hailed Tuesday's ruling as a victory for people -- gay and straight -- who care for children outside the bounds of traditional marriage. Others said it opens the doors to outside parties who want to lay claim to children.
"This is a victory for families in all shapes, sizes and colors," Betsy Griffing, the legal director of the Montana branch of the American Civil Liberties Union, told the Billings Gazette.
Broadening the definition of family is not necessarily a good thing, wrote Justice Jim Rice in the sole dissenting opinion. Anyone who has spent a lot of time caring for children can make legal claims for custody, he wrote in his decision.
"Now even parents who are fit and capable are potentially subject to claims of third parties for the rights of their children," he wrote. "Consequences of geometric proportion will fall in the future upon many fit parents."
Maniaci and Kulstad lived for 10 years together near Missoula, Mt. They exchanged rings and raised two adopted children (now ages 9 and 6).
After the couple separated in 2006, Kulstad sought joint custody rights with the children. Maniaci has since remarried to a man.
Justice Brian Morris wrote the majority opinion and said state law allows nonparents to seek a "parenting interest" if a parent-child bond has been established. "Maniaci cannot rewrite history of the fact that she and Kulstad lived together for more than 10 years and jointly raised the minor children in the same household," he wrote.
It can only be discrimination to shut out homosexuals from the law, he added.
"Naming it for the evil it is, discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is bigotry," he wrote. "Lesbian and gay Montanans must not be forced to fight to marry, to raise their children and to live with the same dignity that is afforded heterosexuals."
Related: Judge Says Mom Must Punish Kids for Skipping Visits With Dad, Hollywood Wife Asking for $1 Million Per Month in SupportRecent Posts
- G.I. Joe, My Little Pony Invading TV With New Children's Network (2/09/2010)
- Movies May Influence Children's Food Choices, Study Shows (2/09/2010)
- Report Cites 220 Cases of D.C. Teachers Abusing Students (2/09/2010)
- Chicago Candidate Drops Out of Race With Tearful Child On Display (2/09/2010)
- Juicy, But Not Juice (2/09/2010)
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
racheline 10-08-2009 @ 2:41PM
Hurray! It's about time that lawmakers started ending the discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation found in many of these cases regarding adoption and child custody. A caregiver/parent who is fit and capable should never be excluded solely on the basis of their sexual orientation. Good for Montana. Hopefully other states will follow suit.
Reply
Karen 10-08-2009 @ 3:05PM
Seems to me the result of this case should be that adoption rights get extended to gay partners. If the two women had been allowed to file honestly and jointly for adoption in the first place, this would have been a much more straightforward case. I wish these children well, and I hope the adults work out their problems for the kids' sake.
Reply
Mom2-6 10-08-2009 @ 11:13PM
Kudos to the Montana justices who took the first step in recognizing that families are defined by their relationships, not their genders. Adoption equality belongs to all people, not just those with the state's vision of the correct combination of genatilia. On a side note, I wish those who write about adoption would use the correct terminology. Adopted is a verb, not an adjective. Children were or will be adopted - they are not "adopted children."
Reply
Nate 10-14-2009 @ 10:09AM
This comment on another site summed it up:
"It's very disturbing that someone who wants to get out of this lifestyle can still be trapped in it for years to come ... by someone who has no legal or adoptive relationship with the children."
Also, your title proves you people are super biased there Tom.....true journalism doesn't have a bias...
The very title you have is biased....I read the other titles around the country on this one and here they are:
Your Title: Montana Upholds Same-Sex Partner's Parental Rights
Others I found out there:
1) Montana Supremes Find for Lesbian Parent
2) Montana Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Lesbian Parent
3) Montana Supreme Court Finds for Lesbian Parent
4) Montana Supreme Court Rules Against Heterosexual Woman's Rights
See, these are non-biased.......
Reply
Rick 12-08-2009 @ 10:59PM
Montana along with numerous other states and individuals ideas are very warped indeed. Is it really wise to allow this?
1 Corinthians 3:18, 19 says this: "Let no one be seducing himself: If anyone among YOU thinks he is wise in this system of things, let him become a fool, that he may become wise. 19 For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God; for it is written: “He catches the wise in their own cunning."
What was Sodom and Gomorrah destroyed for? The account let's us know that it was so bad that the men and young boys of the city came to Lot's house and wanted to have intercourse with the angels that had materialized as men to warn Lot to get out before the impending destruction. Can we believe a God that does not bend his principles one way or another would view it different today? What does the Apostle Paul say in 1 Corinthians 6:9,10?
"What! Do YOU not know that unrighteous persons will not inherit God’s kingdom? Do not be misled. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men kept for unnatural purposes, nor men who lie with men, nor thieves, nor greedy persons, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit God’s kingdom."
It makes it very clear how God feels about and will deal with that kind of people. Is it the family arrangement he designed? No it is not. They fit the description Paul wrote to the Ephesians in
Ephesians 4:19. "Having come to be past all moral sense, they gave themselves over to loose conduct to work uncleanness of every sort with greediness."
Isn't it a shame that even churches not only allow them to be ministers in the church but also perform same sex marriages. And the so called wise governments sanction and allow it and now allow them to adopt and subject children to their depraved lifestye. Do same sex partners really have parental rights. Maybe in the eyes of those who are discreet and wise in their own eyes but not in God's eyes. This entire world is actually one big Sodom and Gomorrah and as foretold it is headed straight into to destruction at the hands of the only one that can carry out that prophesy. The book of 2 Corinthians says their end will be according to their works. Not a pretty picture. To say gay parents do not warp their children or influence their view of things is like saying straight parents do not influence their children. Any of us with common sense know better than that pile of nonsense. Gays should not be allowed to adopt children and if parents have enough sense they will not allow their children to have close association with them.
The Apostle Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians 15:33 “Do not be misled, “Bad associations spoil useful habits.”
If these type of people are not approved by God does it not stand to reason that they are also bad association? After all can you expect to wash a pig, throw it into the pen with the other pigs and have it not wallow in the mire to?
If any out there reading this truly believe in God's written word then research this and draw your own conclusion. It's there.
Reply