Maine Youth Guardianship

家 » 缅因州 » 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

家 » 缅因州 » 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

家 » 缅因州 » 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

家 » 缅因州 » 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.

缅因州亲子关系法

家 » 缅因州 » 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.

消息

家 » 缅因州 » 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.

消息

家 » 缅因州 » Page 13

缅因州最高司法法院表示，对于同性伴侣的婚姻自结婚之日起的有效性没有“足够的怀疑”，并拒绝回答有关缅因州以前的反婚姻法是否推迟了在马萨诸塞州获得许可的一对夫妇的婚姻的有效性的报道问题。

Kinney v. Busch 案的具体问题是，缅因州 1997 年的反婚姻法是否会导致一对来自缅因州的同性伴侣的婚姻无效，他们于 2008 年在马萨诸塞州结婚，直到 2012 年缅因州平等婚姻倡议法生效。Elizabeth Kinney 于 2013 年寻求与 Tanya Busch 离婚。他们婚姻的生效日期问题——2008 年获得许可还是 2012 年缅因州法律生效的日期——与离婚诉讼中什么算作婚姻财产有关。

据该案在法庭的联合律师、同性恋倡导与捍卫者组织（Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders）的玛丽·L·博诺托（Mary L. Bonauto）称，“美国最高法院消除了州反婚姻法对那些有未决案件或诉讼的人的任何残留影响。法庭依据美国最高法院在 奥贝格费尔 表示对该法律问题不存在“实质性疑问”，并引用该裁决称：“一个州没有法律依据以同性恋特征为由拒绝承认在另一个州举行的合法同性婚姻。” 合法结合的同性伴侣的婚姻有效——期限如此——该规则适用于任何未决的民事案件或诉讼程序。

金尼的离婚律师，法里斯律师事务所的塔米·汉姆-汤普森此前赢得了一审法院的裁决，裁定该婚姻自缔结之日起有效。正是这项裁决促使布希向法院寻求一份关于该法律问题的报告。汉姆-汤普森律师表示：“这为法院、公众和我们的客户提供了确定性和清晰度。缅因州旧有的反婚姻法复活，并延续其对同性伴侣的不公正待遇，没有任何法律依据。”

最高法院的命令驳回了要求作出法律裁决的“报告”，因为法律问题的答案已经很明确。

诺兰·雷克尔（Nolan Reichl）和皮尔斯·阿特伍德律师事务所（Pierce Atwood LLP）的凯瑟琳·R·康纳斯（Catherine R. Connors）也担任上诉律师，并参与了此案的辩护。雷克尔律师表示：“我们有两个强有力的论点。首先，缅因州解除先前禁令的法律规定，婚姻必须‘出于所有目的’得到承认。为了离婚而承认婚姻意味着承认婚姻自开始以来的全部内容。其次，民事案件中的宪法裁决具有追溯效力，适用于未决案件，这是明文规定。”

布什的论点只是试图为缅因州选民在 2012 年废除的歧视性禁令注入活力，而该禁令是最高法院在 2013 年宣布无效的法律类型。 奥贝格费尔”

同性恋者反歧视联盟的博诺托指出，“州长约翰·巴尔达奇和缅因州相关律师”提交了一份法庭之友意见书，敦促法院驳回缅因州恢复歧视同性伴侣法律的企图。意见书还解释说，给出答复至关重要，因为“结婚日期”问题将影响到一系列悬而未决的问题，包括州养老金和社会保障等公共福利，以及遗产、遗嘱认证和税收问题，以及父母权利和子女抚养费。

已报告的问题是：

2008 年 10 月 14 日在马萨诸塞州结婚的同性伴侣在 2008 年 10 月 14 日至 2012 年 12 月 29 日期间获得的财产，是否可以在 2013 年 1 月 18 日提起的离婚诉讼中视为婚姻财产？

该命令于 2015 年 10 月 13 日发布. 案件摘要，包括关于 奥贝格费尔，是可在 GLAD 网站上查阅.

Kinney v. Busch

家 » 缅因州 » 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 in奥贝格费尔表示对该法律问题不存在“实质性疑问”，并引用该裁决称：“一个州没有法律依据以同性恋特征为由拒绝承认在另一个州举行的合法同性婚姻。” 合法结合的同性伴侣的婚姻有效——期限如此——该规则适用于任何未决的民事案件或诉讼程序。阅读更多

背景

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 奥贝格费尔诉霍奇斯。 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.

消息

家 » 缅因州 » 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:
2008 年 10 月 14 日在马萨诸塞州结婚的同性伴侣在 2008 年 10 月 14 日至 2012 年 12 月 29 日期间获得的财产，是否可以在 2013 年 1 月 18 日提起的离婚诉讼中视为婚姻财产？

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 奥贝格费尔诉霍奇斯案. 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.

你可以 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 奥贝格费尔, are available here.

消息

家 » 缅因州 » Page 13

缅因州通过了一项先进的法律，明确了谁是合法父母——无论是基于父母意愿、婚姻、将孩子视为自己的孩子、长期照料和责任，还是遗传因素。缅因州议会两院于6月30日投票推翻了州长勒佩奇的否决，通过了LD 1017/SP 358法案，即《缅因州亲子法》。该法案将于2016年7月1日生效。

这项影响深远的法律优先考虑父母的责任以及青少年和儿童的稳定。

我们知道家庭形式多种多样：美国每年生育超过 40% 儿童的未婚女性和同性伴侣（以及 LGBT 人士）也利用医学辅助生殖和妊娠载体安排来生育和养育下一代。

LGBT 个人、同性伴侣以及我们的孩子都将从这项最先进的立法中受益匪浅。

由于法律滞后于家庭生活的现实，同性恋者反歧视联盟 (GLAD) 的案件记录中经常出现一些令人心碎的案例，这些案例涉及保护缺乏婚姻或遗传纽带的家庭中的亲子关系，或开辟了成为父母的新途径，例如共同监护、事实上的父母身份和共同收养。关于谁是“父母”的、充满争议的“赢家通吃”式诉讼，可能会破坏孩子们所依赖的稳定关系。

这项影响深远的法律优先考虑父母的责任以及青少年和儿童的稳定。

家庭法律咨询委员会 (FLAC) 是一个由立法机构任命的机构，负责对缅因州的家庭法律提出更新建议。该委员会任命了 GLAD 律师玛丽·博诺托 (Mary Bonauto)，以及律师玛格丽特·拉沃伊 (Margaret Lavoie)、布伦达·布坎南 (Brenda Buchanan)、朱迪思·贝里 (Judith Berry)、朱丽叶·霍姆斯-史密斯 (Juliet Holmes-Smith) 和社会工作者弗兰克·布鲁克斯 (Frank Brooks) 组成起草小组委员会，负责更新缅因州的亲子关系法律。起草委员会由法官韦恩·道格拉斯 (Wayne Douglas) 和司法工作人员黛安·肯蒂 (Diane Kenty) 共同主持，广泛征求意见，经过两年的努力，起草了一份法案，该法案已获得 FLAC 批准并提交给立法机关。

由于法律落后于家庭生活的现实，同性恋者反歧视联盟 (GLAD) 的案件记录中经常出现一些令人心碎的案例，这些案例涉及保护缺乏婚姻或遗传联系的家庭中的亲子关系，或开辟成为父母的新途径的胜利，例如共同监护、事实上的父母身份和共同收养。

根据新法，所有儿童均应享有同等的法律权利，不论父母的婚姻状况、性别或儿童的出生情况。新法明确规定，为维护现有的亲子关系，法院可以宣告儿童拥有多于两位的父母。由于新法注重维护现有的亲子关系，与儿童有遗传关系的人并不总是能够仅仅基于遗传学就取代现有的父母。

该法律还正式确立了单亲家庭、非婚家庭和已婚家庭中合法的亲子关系。它澄清并确认了现有的亲子关系认定依据——出生、收养、自愿承认亲子关系、遗传亲子关系认定和事实亲子关系认定。它承认已婚和未婚夫妇的亲子关系推定，对于未婚夫妇，要求那些根据其他一些州使用的“出面承认父母”概念寻求亲子关系的人证明其承担父母责任。它还承认使用医学辅助生殖和妊娠载体协议的父母所生子女的亲子关系。

这是缅因州首部关于辅助生殖亲子关系的法规。与许多其他州一样，使用卵子、精子或胚胎捐赠者的预期父母即为孩子的父母，在缅因州，无论预期父母是否已婚，均视为孩子的父母。

法律要求在此情况下确立合法的亲子关系需要正式的“同意”，并且提供捐赠卵子、精子或胚胎的个人在各方书面同意的情况下可以成为父母。法律还对代孕人和代孕协议提出了严格的要求。在遵守这些标准的情况下，合法的亲子关系归于预期父母，而不是代孕人。法律还允许在有限的情况下进行“传统”代孕。法官可以在孩子出生之前或之后宣布合法的亲子关系。

LGBT 个人、同性伴侣以及我们的孩子都将从这项最先进的立法中受益匪浅。