Powered by Max Banner Ads 

Destroying Gay Families – Doing It To Ourselves
by Michael Daniels

In the fight for equality, marriage, and parenting rights, we as a community have made great strides, and have great strides yet to go. When we achieve the right to marry, or to have children together, we must face the inevitable – what happens when we break up? How do we divorce? What happens to our kids?

It seems that, at least in some recent cases, we’re willing to hide behind the anti-GLBT legislation that we first fought to overturn. Many same-sex parenting cases are working their way through the courts and becoming high-profile in both the way they are being adjudicated and the way in which the parties are behaving toward one another, toward our community, and most importantly toward their children.

Let’s examine some of these cases. All are in Ohio. All involve two women and a child at the heart of the battle.

In the case of Kelly Mullen (bio-mom) and Michele Hobbs (non-bio mom), the story is rather as you might imagine. Mullen and Hobbs were in love, partnered, and decided to have a child together. Mullen was inseminated, and the light of their lives, baby Lucy, was born. Fast-forward four years; Mullen and Hobbs have split up. Hobbs wants to remain part of Lucy’s life – she’s her other mom, after all. Mullen refuses. Hobbs sues… in Hamilton County.

In December of 2007, Hamilton County Juvenile Court magistrate D. Kelley rules that, under Ohio law, Hobbs cannot be considered one of Lucy’s legal parents, but adds “Mullen did relinquish partial custody to Hobbs and cannot completely cut her out of Lucy’s life. It is in the best interest to maintain ties with Hobbs.” The magistrate’s ruling of partial relinquishment of custody was based on the fact that Mullen had listed Hobbs as “parent” on Lucy’s ceremonial birth certificate, in Mullen’s will, power of attorney, and durable power of attorney. Seems like the right decision, yes?

No, said Hamilton County Juvenile Judge Thomas Lipps. Lipps reversed the ruling, denying Hobbs shared custody and terminating all visitation rights. He said that every legal document signed by Mullen was revocable at any time, and the ceremonial birth certificate, letters, notes, etc., held no legal standing. Lipps then went on to make an argument that may be at the crux of these cases when they reach the Ohio Supreme Court. He found that had Mullen and Hobbs wanted to formalize their commitment and child care agreements, they should have executed a written co-custody agreement, and the fact that Mullen consistently refused to enter such an agreement was an important factor in the case.

Hobbs appealed to the Cincinnati-based First District Court of Appeals, which upheld Lipps’ decision. In an opinion that reads almost sympathetic to Hobbs’ position, Judge Sylvia Hendon wrote, “We do not doubt that Hobbs bonded with Lucy. The record is replete with evidence that Hobbs loves this little girl. But the trial court did not err. Hobbs has no legal rights to share in Lucy’s custody.”

In a case closer to home, the story is the same. Julie Smith (bio-mom) and Julie Rowell (non-bio mom) met in 2001. “We decided to have a child together,” Rowell says, and in 2003 Smith was inseminated. They had a little girl named Madison.

“For the first five years of Maddy’s life,” Rowell says, “I was her parent in every way. Then in August of 2008, Julie Smith wanted to end our relationship and take Madison away from me.” Rowell filed for custody in October 2008. Once again, no co-custody agreement was in place.

“Life got in the way” of executing the document, Rowell says. “And I never dreamed that I needed one.”

The case is in front of Franklin County Domestic Relations Judge Elizabeth Gill, who has ruled that while Smith has full custody of Madison, Rowell should have visitation rights and set a visitation schedule. “Smith never followed that schedule,” Rowell says, “and she has been found in contempt” for violating the order.

“In 2009, a guardian ad litem was appointed to our case,” Rowell says. “The GAL filed her recommendations in April of this year, and her recommendation – this stranger who only has Maddy’s best interests in mind – recommended co-custody.”

Rowell has not seen Madison since January of this year. Smith has retained attorney David Langdon, counsel of record to Citizens for Community Values and author of Ohio’s Issue 1 anti-GLBT Constitutional Amendment, to represent her in this case.

A third case, also here in Franklin County, pits Elizabeth Warren vs Nancy Scotney in a case with a twist. Warren is the bio-mom, Scotney has a legal and valid second-parent adoption certificate issued by the State of California. They moved to Ohio, and their relationship split up. Warren has filed to exclude Scotney from seeing the child, and has filed with the court to invalidate Scotney’s adoption certificate, citing Ohio’s Issue 1 Constitutional Amendment as her reasoning. [Ed Note: This case is particularly troubling to us, considering that Warren is employed by the Ohio State University in the Multicultural Center as a Student Affairs Project Coordinator. She formerly was known as the GLBT Alliance Coordinator and is listed on OSU’s profile pages as the staff coordinator and liaison for the OSU/Kaleidoscope Youth Center partnership of The Other Prom.]

The case landed before Domestic Relations Judge Kim Browne, who has held that Issue 1, by its language, does not invalidate Scotney’s adoptive parent status, but that her status as an adoptive parent cannot be recognized in Ohio.

These cases will no doubt go forward to Courts of Appeals and eventually the Ohio Supreme Court.

The maddening part of these cases is twofold. At an individual level, the damage is most certainly to the children. These kids have been raised by two parents since their birth – they know them both as Mom. They don’t understand why suddenly they’re not allowed to have any contact with one of their parents, and they often feel confused, hurt and abandoned.

At a community level, it is particularly heinous that it’s turning into a lesbian vs. lesbian battle, and that the bio-moms, once on the forefront of fighting for GLBT equality and rights, are now turning their backs on those values and hiring virulent anti-gay attorneys and hiding behind Issue 1 to strip their former partners of any parental rights.

“At its core, this isn’t a gay issue,” says Rowell. “It’s a woman issue. Women have been doing this to their children’s fathers for centuries, and now their doing it to their children’s other mothers. It’s about power and revenge. They’re falling back, saying ‘I’m this child’s mother and I never meant for anyone else to be her parent.”

It’s tragic. Dear bio-moms – please stop being crazy bitches and think of your children instead of yourselves.

Where are the courts to find a basis for ruling on these cases? “The laws defining families have not kept up with societal and social definitions of families,” says Columbus attorney and certified family law specialist Kerry McCormick. “The law is still evolving in these cases.”

Judges are left to apply hetero-based case law and interpret and apply it to same-sex parents, often with a healthy dose of their own predispositions and prejudices regarding gay and lesbian parents. If you’ve ever wondered why paying attention to judicial races for Domestic Relations, Courts of Appeals, or the Ohio Supreme Court are important, here’s a top reason.

McCormick has some words of wisdom for same-sex couples considering raising a family together. “Make sure you sign a co-custody agreement.” A co-parenting agreement, or naming your partner to take care of your child in a will or power of attorney document is probably insufficient. “And be prepared to fight,” McCormick continues. “Your child deserves that.”

In our final analysis, it comes down to a few steps to take while you’re still in love with each other and being civil – not cunty – toward one another.

First, recognize the red flags. If you’re head over heels in love and plan to have a child together, but your partner refuses or is reluctant to sign a co-custody agreement, ask yourself if you seriously want to be in a relationship and have a child with someone who won’t sign a document giving you parental rights.

Next, if you decide to have a child together, cover your ass with a co-custody agreement. Don’t let life get in the way and hope you two will act civilly if you break up. Have it signed and notarized. Keep your personal copy in a safe place where only you (meaning not your partner) can get to it if something bad happens.

And most importantly, stop bludgeoning your ex-partner, your community, and most importantly your child, with the vicious and hateful anti-GLBT laws we’re all fighting so hard every day to prevent and overturn. Nothing less than our future, and our families, are at stake.

Share on Facebook