Maine Youth Guardianship

Heim » Maine » Page 13

GLAD represents Kyle (not his real name), a teenage boy in rural Maine whose mother responded with hostility after he came out as gay. As a result of his mother’s treatment – which included isolating him, making fun of him, and cutting him off from his support network – Kyle was hospitalized twice due to concerns of self-harm.

Working with local counsel Kids Legal/Pinetree Legal Assistance and Teresa M. Cloutier, Esq., GLAD was able to secure an emergency temporary guardianship order for Kyle’s step-grandmother. Since being out of his mother’s home, Kyle is thriving and has reconnected with a local LGBTQ youth theater troupe.

We are currently awaiting a hearing to finalize a permanent guardianship arrangement.

In Re Carol Boardman

Heim » Maine » Page 13

Victory! The Maine Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) in June overturned a Probate Court ruling that had denied Ms. Boardman, a widow, her petition to change her married surname to that of a friend. The SJC rejected the Probate Court’s ruling that the change would create the misleading impression that the two are married and thus constitute fraud—that precludes a name change. As the Court noted, “given the variety of naming conventions in modern society, having the same last name no more indicates that a couple is married than having different last names indicates that a couple is unmarried.”

GLAD, joined by the ACLU of Maine, EqualityMaine, and Trans Youth Equality Foundation, submitted a friend-of-the-court brief on January 3rd, 2017, to the Maine Supreme Judicial Court in support of an appellant who was denied a legal name change. The Probate Court denied Ms. Boardman’s petition on the grounds that changing her surname to that of a friend would give the misleading impression that the two are married.

The brief, which stresses the importance to the LGBT community of consistent application of the name change statute, argues that Ms. Boardman’s petition met all the requirments of the statute and that the Probate Court abused its discretion in denying it. The statute requires only that a name not be changed for fraudulent purposes, and there was no evidence of fraud in the record in Ms. Broadman’s case. Furthermore, the brief argues, the Court’s assertion that two unmarried individuals cannot share a surname undermines Maine public policy which both prohibits marital status discrimination and supports families whether marital or nonmarital.

GLAD Announces New Board Officers

Heim » Maine » Page 13

GLBTQ Legal Advocates & Defenders (GLAD) will kick off 2017 with new leadership on its Board of Directors. At its December meeting the board voted in Richard J. Yurko as the new President, Joyce Kauffman as the Vice President, Darian Butcher as the Clerk, and David Hayter as the Treasurer. Yurko replaces Dianne Phillips, who served as board president for the past five years, and who will remain on the board.

Yurko, who previously served as Vice President, has been on GLAD’s board since 2009. He is the founder and former Managing Shareholder of Yurko, Salvesen & Remz, P.C., a business litigation boutique based in Boston. A graduate of Dartmouth College, he received his J.D. from Harvard Law School, where he was Senior Projects Editor for the Harvard Civil Rights-Civil Liberties Law Review. Yurko frequently writes and advocates on First Amendment issues. He lives in Brookline, Massachusetts with his partner.

“I’m honored and humbled to become board president at this critical time for our community and for GLAD,” said Yurko. “The priorities laid out by our new strategic plan – racial and economic justice, state level public policy, and access to justice – are particularly apt. Our work is more critical than ever before. Reaching all in our community and joining forces with other progressive movements is essential to defending our rights and making still further advances towards equality.”

Joyce Kauffman is a graduate of Northeastern University School of Law. She is a founding member of the National Family Law Advisory Council, a member of the Family Equality Emeritus Board, and a frequent speaker and writer on LGBTQ family law. Kauffman has received numerous awards, including Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly’s “Lawyer of the Year” in 2009, the Gwen Bloomingdale Pioneer Spirit Award, and the Fisher Davenport Award. Her firm, Kauffman Law & Mediation, focuses in the areas of adoption, assisted reproductive technology, and mediation. Kauffman has been on GLAD’s board since 2012.

Darian M. Butcher is an Associate at Day Pitney LLP. She represents mortgage companies, loan servicers, and other financial institutions in the defense of claims by borrowers. She also represents individual and corporate clients in probate controversies. Butcher earned her J.D. from Boston University School of Law and clerked for Massachusetts Appeals Court Justice Malcolm Graham (ret). She has been on GLAD’s board since 2014.

David Hayter has held executive and finance positions at Liberty Mutual, Hospitals of Ontario Pension Plan, and Manulife/John Hancock. At Liberty Mutual, he was the founding co-executive sponsor of the company’s first LGBT Employee Resource Group. He holds an MBA from Wilfrid Laurier University in Canada, and brings to GLAD knowledge and experience in investments, accounting, and finance. Hayter has served on the boards of Wave Accounting, Community Servings, St. John’s Hospital Foundation, and the Wilfrid Laurier University Board of Governors.

Advocating for LGBTQ Youth at Maine’s Long Creek Youth Development Center

Heim » Maine » Page 13

The health, safety and well-being of LGBTQ youth is at the forefront of GLAD’s work. LGBTQ youth face a number of challenges, particularly those in the juvenile justice system, where they are disproportionately represented. We are currently working in Maine, following the tragic suicide of a young transgender man in November, 2016, to monitor the treatment of LGBTQ youth in the Long Creek Youth Development Center, Maine’s juvenile detention facility. In collaboration with local, state and national groups, GLAD is working to ensure a thorough and transparent investigation into the death, to promote better conditions for LGBTQ youth in the facility, and to explore systemic issues in the hopes of supporting LGBTQ youth in their communities rather than incarcerating them.

Maine Parentage Act

Heim » Maine » Page 13

Maine hat seine Version des Uniform Parentage Act verabschiedet. Dieser regelt, wer rechtlicher Elternteil ist – ob aufgrund der Elternabsicht, der Ehe, der Annahme eines Kindes durch einen Erwachsenen, langfristiger Fürsorge und Verantwortung oder genetischer Veranlagung. Beide Kammern der Legislative von Maine haben am 30. Juni 2016 das Veto von Gouverneur LePage aufgehoben und den „Maine Parentage Act“ (LD 1017/SP 358) verabschiedet.

Erfahren Sie hier mehr darüber, wie der Maine Parentage Act verabschiedet wurde.

Nachricht

Heim » Maine » Page 13

GLBTQ Legal Advocates & Defenders (GLAD) issued the following statement on the new ballot initiativeto remove sexual orientation and gender identity from Maine’s Human Rights Act:

“This latest effort to support discrimination against Maine’s LGBTQ people will be found profoundly distasteful by the vast majority of Maine voters,” said Mary L. Bonauto, GLAD’s Civil Rights Project Director and a resident of Portland. “I understand some people remain uncomfortable with LGBTQ people, but the Maine way is about decency toward all. This initiative contradicts those basic values.”

The Maine Human Rights Act was amended to include sexual orientation and gender identity in 2005 and voters strongly supported it against an attempted repeal-by-ballot that same year.

Nachricht

Heim » Maine » Page 13

Stating there is no “sufficient … doubt” about the validity of a same-sex couple’s marriage from the date of its celebration, the Maine Supreme Judicial Court has declined to answer a reported question about whether Maine’s former anti-marriage law delayed the validity of a couple’s marriage licensed in Massachusetts.

The specific issue in Kinney v. Busch was whether Maine’s 1997 anti-marriage law had the effect of making the marriage of a same-sex couple from Maine who married in Massachusetts in 2008 a non-entity until Maine’s equal marriage initiative law went into effect in 2012. Elizabeth Kinney sought a divorce from Tanya Busch in 2013. The question of the effective date of their marriage –when licensed in 2008 or when Maine’s law became effective 2012 – matters to what counts as martial property in the divorce proceedings.

According to Mary L. Bonauto of Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders, co-counsel in the case at the Law Court, “the U.S. Supreme Court wiped away any lingering effect of state anti-marriage laws to people who have pending cases or proceedings. The Law Court relied on the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Obergefell to say that there is no “substantial doubt” about the legal question, and quoted that ruling to the effect that: ‘[T]here is no lawful basis for a State to refuse to recognize a lawful same-sex marriage performed in another State on the ground of its same-sex character.’ Marriages of same-sex couples lawfully joined are valid – period – and that rule applies to any pending civil case or proceeding.”

Kinney’s divorce attorney, Tammy Ham-Thompson of Farris Law, previously won a trial court ruling that the marriage was valid as of the date it was entered. It was that legal ruling that prompted Busch to seek a report on the legal question from the Law Court. Attorney Ham-Thompson said, “This provides certainty and clarity for the courts, the public and our clients. There is no legal basis for resurrecting Maine’s old anti-marriage and perpetuating its injustices against same-sex couples.”

The Supreme Judicial Court’s order discharges the “report” requesting a legal ruling because the answer to the legal question is already clear.

Nolan Reichl, along with Catherine R. Connors at Pierce Atwood LLP was also appellate counsel and argued the case. Attorney Reichl stated: “We had two strong arguments. First, the Maine law lifting the previous ban provides that marriages must be recognized “for all purposes.” Recognizing a marriage for purposes of divorce means recognizing all of the marriage from when it began. Second, it is black letter law that constitutional rulings in civil cases are retroactively applied to pending cases.

Busch’s argument simply tried to breathe life into a discriminatory ban that Maine voters repealed in 2012 and is the type of law invalidated by the Supreme Court in Obergefell.”

GLAD’s Bonauto noted an amici curiae brief of “Governor John Baldacci and Concerned Maine Lawyers” filed urging the Court to reject the attempt to resurrect Maine’s discriminatory law against same-sex couples. It also explained that an answer was important because the “date of marriage” issue would affect open matters ranging from public benefits like state pensions and social security, to estate, probate and tax issues, to parental rights and child support.

The reported question that was discharged is:

May property acquired between October 14, 2008 and December 29, 2012, by a same-sex couple married in the State of Massachusetts on October 14, 2008, be treated as marital property for the purposes of a divorce action filed on January 18, 2013?

The order was issued on October 13, 2015. The briefs in the case, including briefing on the effect of Obergefell, are available on GLAD’s website.

Kinney v. Busch

Heim » Maine » Page 13

Stating no “sufficient … doubt” about the validity of a same-sex couple’s marriage from the date of its celebration, the Maine Supreme Judicial Court declined to answer the reported question about whether Maine’s former anti-marriage law delayed the validity of a couple’s marriage licensed in Massachusetts. The Law Court relied on the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision inObergefell to say that there is no “substantial doubt” about the legal question, and quoted that ruling to the effect that: ‘[T]here is no lawful basis for a State to refuse to recognize a lawful same-sex marriage performed in another State on the ground of its same-sex character.’ Marriages of same-sex couples lawfully joined are valid – period – and that rule applies to any pending civil case or proceeding.” Mehr lesen

Hintergrund

Together with the law firm of Pierce Atwood LLP and Farris Law, GLAD represented Elisabeth Kinney, the plaintiff/appellee in a divorce case between two women, on a legal question before the Maine Law Court, which heard oral argument on September 18, 2015.

The question, reported to the Law Court for decision from the Maine District Court is:

Kinney argues that her marriage was valid in Maine from day one. Busch counters that argument by pointing to the anti-marriage law enacted in Maine in 1997, prohibiting such marriages, remained in effect until December 29, 2012, the effective date of the Maine voter initiative repealing the old law and allowing same-sex couples to marry.

Kinney’s argument for validity is two-fold. First, the law Maine voters enacted at the ballot in 2012 specifically accorded recognition to existing marriages validly licensed elsewhere. When Kinney filed her divorce action in January 2013, the previous bar on recognition had been lifted. And since the Maine referendum said marriages were to be recognized “for all purposes,” it would be nonsensical to recognize a marriage partially or on some date other than when it was licensed and certified. Busch counters that this is a retroactive application of the law – something Maine disfavors. To the contrary, Kinney is applying the law as it exists now to her pending action and in line with the mandate passed by the voters.

Second, while the text of the 2012 law provides the answer to the reported question, there is an additional argument based on the Supreme Court’s June 2015 ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges. When the Supreme Court announces a new constitutional rule in a civil case, as it did in holding that state marriage bans and recognition bans violate the Constitution, that rule is applied to pending cases like Kinney’s. Stated another way, constitutional rulings in civil cases are retroactively applied to pending cases. Busch’s argument simply seeks to breathe life into a discriminatory ban that Maine voters repealed in 2012 and which was of a kind that the Supreme Court invalidated this year. That doubly defunct law can provide no recourse for Busch.

One issue of contention at oral argument was whether the case is now properly before the Court, or whether these arguments must be advanced after trial. Maine allows a “report” of a legal issue in certain instances, including where there is an important public issue. Although Busch’s attorney sought the report, Kinney agrees it is an important question since there is no authoritative answer in Maine to this question, and it can affect open matters ranging from public benefits like state pensions and social security, to estate, probate and tax issues, to parental rights and child support.

Appellate counsel for Kinney include Tammy Ham-Thompson of Farris Law, who also represents Elisabeth in the District Court, Catherine R. Connors and Nolan Riechl of Pierce Atwood LLP, and Mary L. Bonauto of Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders. Attorney Riechl presented oral argument to the Court. An audio file will be posted at the Maine Supreme Judicial Court’s website shortly, and will then be available for two weeks, at http://www.courts.maine.gov/maine_courts/supreme/stream.shtml.

Nachricht

Heim » Maine » Page 13

Today, the Maine Law Court heard oral argument in a pending divorce case between two women on a legal question reported to them for decision from the Maine District Court. The question is:
May property acquired between October 14, 2008 and December 29, 2012, by a same-sex couple married in the State of Massachusetts on October 14, 2008, be treated as marital property for the purposes of a divorce action filed on January 18, 2013?

Together with the law firm of Pierce Atwood LLP and Farris Law, Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders represents Kinney who argues that her marriage was valid in Maine from day one. Busch counters that argument by pointing to the anti-marriage law enacted in Maine in 1997, prohibiting such marriages, remained in effect until December 29, 2012, the effective date of the Maine voter initiative repealing the old law and allowing same-sex couples to marry.

Second, while the text of the 2012 law provides the answer to the reported question, there is an additional argument based on the Supreme Court’s June 2015 ruling in Obergefell gegen Hodges. When the Supreme Court announces a new constitutional rule in a civil case, as it did in holding that state marriage bans and recognition bans violate the Constitution, that rule is applied to pending cases like Kinney’s. Stated another way, constitutional rulings in civil cases are retroactively applied to pending cases. Busch’s argument simply seeks to breathe life into a discriminatory ban that Maine voters repealed in 2012 and which was of a kind that the Supreme Court invalidated this year. That doubly defunct law can provide no recourse for Busch.

One issue of contention at oral argument today was whether the case is now properly before the Court, or whether these arguments must be advanced after trial. Maine allows a “report” of a legal issue in certain instances, including where there is an important public issue. Although Busch’s attorney sought the report, Kinney agrees it is an important question since there is no authoritative answer in Maine to this question, and it can affect open matters ranging from public benefits like state pensions and social security, to estate, probate and tax issues, to parental rights and child support.

Du kannst listen to a recording of the argument now at the Maine Supreme Judicial Court’s website. The recording will be available for two weeks.

The briefs in the case, including briefing on the effect of Obergefell, are available here.

Nachricht

Heim » Maine » Page 13

Maine hat ein hochmodernes Gesetz verabschiedet, das klarstellt, wer rechtlicher Elternteil ist – ob aufgrund der Elternabsicht, der Ehe, der Annahme, ein Kind als eigenes zu betrachten, der langfristigen Betreuung und Verantwortung oder der genetischen Veranlagung. Beide Kammern des Parlaments von Maine stimmten am 30. Juni dafür, das Veto von Gouverneur LePage zu überstimmen und den „Maine Parentage Act“ (LD 1017/SP 358) zu verabschieden. Er tritt am 1. Juli 2016 in Kraft.

Dieses weitreichende Gesetz priorisiert die elterliche Verantwortung und Stabilität für Jugendliche und Kinder.

Wir wissen, dass es vielfältige Familienformen gibt: In den USA bringen jedes Jahr über 401.000.000 Kinder unverheiratete Frauen zur Welt, und gleichgeschlechtliche Paare (und einzelne LGBT-Personen) nutzen medizinisch unterstützte Reproduktion und Leihmutterschaftsvereinbarungen, um die nächste Generation zu gebären und zu erziehen.

Einzelne LGBT-Personen, gleichgeschlechtliche Paare und unsere Kinder gehören zu denen, die von dieser hochmodernen Gesetzgebung enorm profitieren werden.

Da die Gesetzgebung den Realitäten des Familienlebens nicht gerecht wird, finden sich in der GLAD-Liste immer wieder herzzerreißende Fälle zum Schutz der Eltern-Kind-Beziehung in Familien ohne eheliche oder genetische Bindungen oder Erfolge, die neue Wege zur Elternschaft eröffnen, wie etwa gemeinsames Sorgerecht, De-facto-Elternschaft und gemeinsame Adoption. Strittige Rechtsstreitigkeiten, bei denen der Gewinner alles bekommt und die Frage nach der Elternschaft im Vordergrund steht, können gefestigte Beziehungen zerstören, auf die Kinder angewiesen sind.

Dieses weitreichende Gesetz priorisiert die elterliche Verantwortung und Stabilität für Jugendliche und Kinder.

Die Family Law Advisory Commission (FLAC), eine vom Gesetzgeber eingesetzte Gruppe, die Aktualisierungen des Familienrechts in Maine empfiehlt, beauftragte die GLAD-Anwältin Mary Bonauto zusammen mit den Anwältinnen Margaret Lavoie, Brenda Buchanan, Judith Berry, Juliet Holmes-Smith und dem Sozialarbeiter Frank Brooks mit der Mitarbeit in einem Unterausschuss zur Überarbeitung der Abstammungsgesetze in Maine. Unter dem gemeinsamen Vorsitz von Richter Wayne Douglas und der Justizangestellten Diane Kenty führte der Ausschuss umfassende Konsultationen durch und erarbeitete nach zweijähriger Arbeit einen Gesetzentwurf, der von der FLAC genehmigt und dem Parlament vorgelegt wurde.

Da die Gesetzgebung den Realitäten des Familienlebens nicht gerecht wird, finden sich auf der Tagesordnung von GLAD immer wieder herzzerreißende Fälle zum Schutz der Eltern-Kind-Beziehung in Familien ohne eheliche oder genetische Bindungen oder Erfolge, die neue Wege zur Elternschaft eröffnen, wie etwa gemeinsames Sorgerecht, De-facto-Elternschaft und gemeinsame Adoption.

Nach dem neuen Gesetz sollen alle Kinder die gleichen Rechte haben, unabhängig vom Familienstand, Geschlecht der Eltern oder den Umständen der Geburt des Kindes. Es wird ausdrücklich anerkannt, dass Gerichte zur Wahrung einer bestehenden Eltern-Kind-Beziehung feststellen können, dass ein Kind mehr als zwei Elternteile hat. Da der Schwerpunkt auf der Wahrung bestehender Beziehungen liegt, kann eine Person mit einer genetischen Verwandtschaft zu einem Kind einen bestehenden Elternteil nicht immer allein aufgrund der genetischen Veranlagung verdrängen.

Das Gesetz formalisiert zudem das rechtliche Eltern-Kind-Verhältnis in Alleinerziehenden-, nichtehelichen und ehelichen Paarbeziehungen. Es klärt und bestätigt bestehende Abstammungsgründe – Geburt, Adoption, freiwillige Vaterschaftsanerkennung, Feststellung der genetischen Abstammung und Feststellung der faktischen Abstammung. Es erkennt die Abstammungsvermutung sowohl für verheiratete als auch für unverheiratete Paare an und verlangt von unverheirateten Paaren den Nachweis elterlicher Verantwortung von denjenigen, die die Abstammung anstreben, basierend auf dem in einigen anderen Staaten üblichen Konzept des „Ausgebens als Elternteil“. Das Gesetz erkennt auch die Abstammung von Kindern an, deren Eltern medizinisch unterstützte Reproduktion und Leihmutterschaftsvereinbarungen nutzen.

Dies ist das erste Gesetz in Maine, das sich mit der Abstammung durch künstliche Befruchtung befasst. Wie in vielen anderen Bundesstaaten sind die Wunscheltern, die eine Ei-, Samen- oder Embryonenspende in Anspruch nehmen, die Eltern des Kindes. In Maine gilt dies unabhängig davon, ob die Wunscheltern verheiratet sind oder nicht.

Das Gesetz erfordert eine formelle „Einwilligung“, um in diesem Zusammenhang die rechtliche Elternschaft festzustellen. Eine Person, die die gespendete Eizelle, das gespendete Sperma oder den gespendeten Embryo zur Verfügung stellt, kann Eltern werden, wenn alle Parteien schriftlich zustimmen. Das Gesetz legt auch strenge Anforderungen an Leihmutterschaften und Leihmutterschaftsvereinbarungen fest. Werden diese Standards eingehalten, liegt die rechtliche Elternschaft bei den Wunscheltern und nicht bei der Leihmutter. Das Gesetz erlaubt in begrenztem Umfang auch „traditionelle“ Leihmutterschaft. Ein Richter kann die rechtliche Elternschaft vor oder nach der Geburt des Kindes feststellen.

Einzelne LGBT-Personen, gleichgeschlechtliche Paare und unsere Kinder gehören zu denen, die von dieser hochmodernen Gesetzgebung enorm profitieren werden.