Maine Youth Guardianship

Дом » Мэн » 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

Дом » Мэн » 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

Дом » Мэн » 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

Дом » Мэн » 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.

Закон штата Мэн о родительстве

Дом » Мэн » Page 13

Maine has adopted its version of the Uniform Parentage Act, clarifying who is a legal parent – whether based on intent to parent, marriage, or an adult holding out a child as their own, as well as long term-caretaking and responsibility, or genetics. Both houses of the Maine legislature voted June 30, 2016 to override Governor LePage’s veto in order to pass LD 1017/SP 358, the “Maine Parentage Act,” into law.

Learn more about how the Maine Parentage Act was passed here.

Новости

Дом » Мэн » 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.

Новости

Дом » Мэн » 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 Обергефелл 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 Обергефелл.”

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 Обергефелл, are available on GLAD’s website.

Kinney v. Busch

Дом » Мэн » 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 inОбергефелл 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.” Читать далее

Фон

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.

Новости

Дом » Мэн » 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 Обергефелл против Ходжеса. 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.

Ты можешь 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 Обергефелл, are available here.

Новости

Дом » Мэн » Page 13

В штате Мэн принят современный закон, разъясняющий, кто является законным родителем — на основании намерения воспитывать ребёнка, брака, признавания ребёнка своим, долгосрочной заботы и ответственности или генетики. 30 июня обе палаты законодательного собрания штата Мэн проголосовали за преодоление вето губернатора Лепейджа и принятие законопроекта LD 1017/SP 358, «Закона о родительстве в штате Мэн». Закон вступит в силу 1 июля 2016 года.

Этот далеко идущий закон ставит во главу угла родительскую ответственность и стабильность для молодежи и детей.

Мы знаем, что формы семьи разнообразны: незамужние женщины рожают более 40% детей в США каждый год, а однополые пары (и отдельные лица ЛГБТ) входят в число тех, кто прибегает к медицинским вспомогательным репродуктивным технологиям и схемам гестационного вынашивания для рождения и воспитания следующего поколения.

Отдельные представители ЛГБТ, однополые пары и наши дети — среди тех, кто получит огромную пользу от этого современного законодательства.

Поскольку законодательство отстаёт от реалий семейной жизни, в списке дел GLAD постоянно оказываются душераздирающие дела о защите отношений между родителями и детьми в семьях, где отсутствуют супружеские или генетические связи, а также дела, открывающие новые пути к родительству, такие как совместная опека, фактическое родительство и совместное усыновление. Спорные судебные разбирательства по принципу «победитель получает всё» о том, кто является «родителем», могут разрушить устоявшиеся отношения, на которые рассчитывают дети.

Этот далеко идущий закон ставит во главу угла родительскую ответственность и стабильность для молодежи и детей.

Консультативная комиссия по семейному праву (FLAC), созданная законодательным органом и разрабатывающая рекомендации по внесению изменений в семейное законодательство штата Мэн, привлекла адвоката GLAD Мэри Бонауто, а также адвокатов Маргарет Лавуа, Бренду Бьюкенен, Джудит Берри, Джульет Холмс-Смит и социального работника Фрэнка Брукса к работе в подкомитете по разработке законопроектов для обновления законодательства штата Мэн об установлении отцовства. Под председательством судьи Уэйна Дугласа и сотрудницы судебной системы Дайан Кенти комитет провел широкие консультации и в течение двух лет разработал законопроект, который был одобрен FLAC и представлен в законодательный орган.

Поскольку закон отстает от реалий семейной жизни, в деле GLAD постоянно фигурируют душераздирающие дела о защите отношений между родителями и детьми в семьях, в которых отсутствуют супружеские или генетические связи, или победы, открывающие новые пути к родительству, такие как совместная опека, фактическое родительство и совместное усыновление.

Согласно новому закону, всем детям должны быть предоставлены равные права независимо от семейного положения, пола родителей или обстоятельств рождения ребёнка. В нём прямо указано, что для сохранения существующих отношений между родителями и ребёнком суды могут объявить, что у ребёнка более двух родителей. В связи с акцентом на сохранение существующих отношений, лицо, имеющее генетическое родство с ребёнком, не всегда может вытеснить существующего родителя исключительно на основании генетики.

Закон также формализует правовые отношения между родителями и детьми как в неполных, так и в супружеских семьях, состоящих в браке и не состоящих в браке. Он разъясняет и подтверждает существующие основания для установления отцовства: рождение, усыновление, добровольное признание отцовства, установление генетического и фактического отцовства. Закон признает презумпцию отцовства как для состоящих в браке, так и для не состоящих в браке пар, а в отношении не состоящих в браке пар требует подтверждения родительской ответственности от тех, кто стремится установить отцовство на основе концепции «выдвижения своего родительского имени», используемой в некоторых других штатах. Закон также признает отцовство детей, рожденных от родителей, использующих методы вспомогательной репродукции и соглашения о гестационном вынашивании ребенка.

Это первый закон в штате Мэн, регулирующий установление отцовства с помощью вспомогательных репродуктивных технологий. Как и во многих других штатах, предполагаемый родитель или родители, использующие донора яйцеклетки, спермы или эмбриона, являются родителями ребёнка, причём в штате Мэн это правило действует независимо от того, состоят ли предполагаемые родители в браке или нет.

В этом контексте закон требует формального «согласия» для установления законного отцовства, и лицо, предоставляющее донорскую яйцеклетку, сперму или эмбрион, может быть родителем при наличии письменного согласия всех сторон. Закон также устанавливает строгие требования к гестационному носительству и соглашениям о гестационном носительстве. При соблюдении этих стандартов законное отцовство принадлежит предполагаемым родителям, а не гестационному носительству. Закон также допускает «традиционное» суррогатное материнство в ограниченных случаях. Судья может объявить о законном отцовстве до или после рождения ребёнка.

Отдельные представители ЛГБТ, однополые пары и наши дети — среди тех, кто получит огромную пользу от этого современного законодательства.