YouTube #!trpst#trp-gettext data-trpgettextoriginal=151#!trpen#Video#!trpst#/trp-gettext#!trpen#

Am 4. Oktober 2016 erließ der Oberste Gerichtshof von Massachusetts (SJC) eine Entscheidung In Partanen gegen Gallagher, und erklärte, dass Karen Partanen, eine nicht leibliche Mutter, die rechtliche Mutter der beiden Kinder sein kann, die sie mit ihrer ehemaligen Partnerin Julie Gallagher großgezogen hat.

„Diese Entscheidung ist ein großer Erfolg für die heutigen Familien, die sich auf so vielfältige Weise zusammensetzen. Sie ist insbesondere ein Sieg für die Kinder dieser Familien, die nicht ihrer Eltern beraubt werden sollten, nur weil diese nicht verheiratet sind oder künstliche Befruchtung in Anspruch genommen haben.“ – Mary Bonauto, Leiterin des GLAD Civil Rights Project

Fallhintergrund

Jo- und Ja- sind Geschwister, jetzt 7 und 4 Jahre alt, die Kinder von Karen Partanen und Julie Gallagher.

Karen and Julie were a couple for nearly 13 years.  They met in Massachusetts, moved to Florida where they purchased a home together, and after a time decided to have children together using assisted reproduction.  Together they consented to the procedures, chose a donor, and underwent psychological evaluations. Karen first tried to become pregnant, but when she was unsuccessful, Julie became pregnant.  Karen even injected Julie with the semen for the conception of their second child.

Ihre Familien waren von der Nachricht der Schwangerschaften begeistert und veranstalteten eine Babyparty für das Paar. Von der Geburt von „Jo“ im Jahr 2008 und „Ja“ im Jahr 2012 an war Karen (die Julie im Kreißsaal begleitete) ihre Mama und Julie ihre Mama.

When the children were born, Karen and Julie sent out birth announcements to friends and family. They raised the children together, sharing all of the normal parenting duties, from night feedings to medical decisions to financial support. They spent holidays and vacations together, and their families and community of friends saw them as a family unit. Jo and Ja saw both Julie’s and Karen’s parents as their grandparents – and were in turn regarded as grandchildren.  The children’s schools and medical providers knew both Karen and Julie as the parents.

For the time that Karen and Julie lived in Florida, adoption was not an option that was available to Karen to establish herself as a legal parent.  Florida’s ban on “homosexual” adoption (the last in the nation) was struck down by an intermediate appellate court in late 2010 and not appealed by the State.  Following this, there was a jahrelange Rechtsunsicherheit Ob andere Berufungsgerichte der mittleren Ebene dem Urteil zustimmen würden und wie der Oberste Gerichtshof Floridas zur Verfassungsmäßigkeit des Verbots stand, wurde diskutiert. Das Adoptionsverbot wurde erst 2015 aufgehoben.

In 2012, Karen and Julie moved from Florida to Massachusetts, where their relationship deteriorated, and they separated in 2014. At that point, Julie had refused Karen’s request to do an adoption.  In 2014, Karen filed a legal complaint seeking to be declared a “de facto” parent, so that she could see the children.

Karen filed a second complaint to be declared a full, legal parent under existing Massachusetts laws to secure a clear ruling acknowledging her role and her responsibilities to the children.  No appellate case has decided whether that is permissible, although the “paternity” (and “maternity”) law in place since 1986 serves as a backstop to declare the parentage of children whose parents have not married or adopted them.

That groundbreaking law was part of systemic efforts in Massachusetts to ensure that all children receive equal consideration regardless of the circumstances of their birth.   Since that law, Chapter 209C, imposes responsibility on people who have children through sexual reproduction, and its terms are general, Karen argues it is broad enough to include children born through assisted reproduction, as here.  Such a ruling would provide protections for both same-sex and different-sex couples who use assisted reproduction to create their families, which in Massachusetts is about 5% of all births.

Während der Richter im Abstammungsstreit Karens Klage abwies, Anlass zu diesem Appell, the judge in the de facto case granted Karen shared legal and physical custody and issued a child support obligation.  Gallagher is appealing that ruling because she wants to be the only decision maker.  A notice of appeal was filed at the Appeals Court in that case.

Julie has opposed Karen’s effort to become a legal parent to Jo and Ja.  Karen seeks stability and permanency for her children.  “I grew up in a large family, and that sense of family is what I want for my children,” said Karen.

When relationships change, families that have formed by love and intention, but without court involvement, can be vulnerable to legal attack, leading to this kind of high-stakes litigation.  Karen hopes that her children will be able to enjoy the same legal protections as other children so that they can continue to have the security of their two parents.

Karen wird von Mary L. Bonauto von GLBTQ Legal Advocates & Defenders, Patience Crozier von Kauffman Crozier LLP, Elizabeth Roberts von Roberts & Sauer LLP und Teresa Harkins La Vita vom La Vita Law Center vertreten. 

Die rechtlichen Fragen und Argumente

The focus of this case is to ensure that the two parents who brought Jo and Ja into the world remain their parents even though the adults have now separated.   Our nation decided long ago that children should not pay the price if their parents do not marry or take other steps to secure their legal relationships.  That same principle applies to the children in this case.

Like every state, Massachusetts has a comprehensive law in place to assure that children who are born to an unmarried couple may  have a determination of who are their legal parents, to ensure that both parents support them (when able), and that their custody and visitation be allocated based on the children’s best interests.

That law says that when unmarried parents have and raise a child together in their home and hold out the child as their child to the community, that the non-birth parent is presumed to be a legal parent regardless of biological connection.   That law should apply here.

This law was drafted before assisted reproduction became widely available, as now, for individuals and married and unmarried couples.   Since the law requires that a child be “born to” a couple for its protections to apply, this case asks that children born to an unmarried couple through assisted reproduction have the same protections as children born to an unmarried couple through sexual intercourse.  That would mean the court would determine their legal parentage, impose support obligations, and make an assessment of what custody and visitation arrangement is in their best interests for that couple.

Massachusetts also has a law that provides for immediate legal parentage upon both parents at the time of birth when a married couple has consented to have a child through assisted reproduction.  Karen argues that law should apply here, even though the parents are unmarried, because Massachusetts extends every protection available to children of married couples to children of unmarried couples to the extent possible.   The constitutional rights of non-marital children to equal treatment demand that same result.

Die Klage auf Feststellung der rechtlichen Abstammung wurde im März 2015 vom Gericht erster Instanz abgewiesen und ist Gegenstand dieser Berufung. Die Berufung wurde vom Obersten Gerichtshof von Massachusetts (SJC) direkt überprüft.

Die mündliche Verhandlung in diesem Fall fand am 5. April 2016 vor dem Obersten Gerichtshof statt..

Karens Anwälte argumentieren, dass Jo und Ja durch künstliche Befruchtung entstanden seien und daher die gleichen Rechte wie andere nichteheliche Kinder hätten. Dies gelte insbesondere dann, wenn die Eltern die Kinder betreut und eine enge Eltern-Kind-Beziehung aufgebaut hätten.

Karens Anwälte führen dieses Argument wie folgt an:

  • Kapitel 209C des Massachusetts General Law (MGLA)which is the law protecting all children born to unmarried parents, under which Karen has legal standing as a presumed “holding out” parent to make a claim for legal parentage.  Based on the circumstances of the children’s birth – mutually agreed-to assisted reproduction rather than sexual activity – there is no question that the child was their child and not the child of another possible person who could assert a claim for parentage.  The courts must construe the law in a gender-neutral fashion, which provides that a person is a presumed father if “while the child is under the age of majority, he, jointly with the mother, received the child into their home and openly held out the child as their child.”
  • MGLA GL ca. 46, 4B, das festlegt, dass ein Kind, das mit Einwilligung des Ehepartners durch künstliche Befruchtung in einer Ehe geboren wird, das rechtliche Kind beider Ehepartner ist. Das Gesetz begründet die Elternschaft mit der Geburt auf Grundlage gegenseitigen Einverständnisses und erfordert keine biologische Verwandtschaft.
  • Eigenkapital:  If for any technical reason the statutes do not apply, the command that non-marital children not be disadvantaged relative to marital children requires the court to provide the parentage remedy through equity.  In addition, the brief notes that there is no reason that “de facto” parenthood should not include rights of custody, visitation and the obligation of child support when a child is brought into the world and raised by two loving adults.

Friend-of-the-court briefs have been submitted by: