YouTube #!trpst#trp-gettext data-trpgettextoriginal=161#!trpen#影片#!trpst#/trp-gettext#!trpen#

2016 年 10 月 4 日，馬薩諸塞州最高司法法院 (SJC) 發布了 決定 在 帕爾塔寧訴加拉格爾案，宣布非親生母親卡倫·帕塔寧 (Karen Partanen) 可以成為她與前伴侶朱莉·加拉格爾 (Julie Gallagher) 撫養的兩個孩子的合法父母。

「這項裁決對當代家庭來說是一次重大勝利，因為現代家庭的組成方式多種多樣。對於那些不應該因為父母未婚或未使用輔助生殖技術而被剝奪父母撫養權的家庭的孩子來說，這尤其是一項勝利。」——格拉德民權聯盟民權項目主任瑪麗·博諾托

案件背景

Jo- 和 Ja- 是姐弟倆，現年分別為 7 歲和 4 歲，是 Karen Partanen 和 Julie Gallagher 的孩子。

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.

他們的家人聽到懷孕的消息欣喜若狂，也為這對夫婦舉辦了迎嬰派對。從2008年“喬”出生的那一刻起，以及2012年“賈”出生的那一刻起，凱倫（她陪著朱莉在產房裡）就是他們的“媽媽”，朱莉則是他們的“媽媽”。

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 長達數年的法律不確定性 其他中級上訴法院是否會同意該裁決，以及佛羅裡達州最高法院對該禁令合憲性的立場如何，都引發了爭議。這項收養禁令直到2015年才被廢除。

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.

雖然親子關係案的法官駁回了卡倫的訴求， 促使這項呼籲， 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 的代表律師包括 GLBTQ Legal Advocates & Defenders 的 Mary L. Bonauto、Kauffman Crozier LLP 的 Patience Crozier、Roberts & Sauer LLP 的 Elizabeth Roberts 以及 La Vita Law Center 的 Teresa Harkins La Vita。 

法律問題和爭論

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.

2015年3月，初審法院駁回了“確認合法親子關係的訴狀”，該訴狀也是本次上訴的焦點。該上訴由馬薩諸塞州最高法院（SJC）直接審理。

該案於 2016 年 4 月 5 日在 SJC 進行了口頭辯論.

凱倫的律師辯稱，喬和賈是凱倫和朱莉透過輔助生殖技術所生，他們應該享有與其他非婚生子女同等的權利。尤其當父母悉心照顧孩子並建立了牢固的親子關係時，這一點尤其重要。

Karen 的律師提出以下論點：

  • 馬薩諸塞州普通法第 209C 章 （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 c. 46, 4B該法規定，經配偶同意，透過輔助生殖技術在婚姻關係中出生的子女，是夫妻雙方的合法子女。該法規定，在雙方同意的基礎上，子女出生後即確立了親子關係，無需任何血緣關係。
  • 公平:  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: