Lesbian Who Split With Partner Must Pay Child Support for Adopted Children

[NNN0LHI]

http://ap.tbo.com/ap/breaking/MGB5IXOHE5E.html

Lesbian Who Split With Partner Must Pay Child Support for Adopted Children

INDIANAPOLIS (AP) - A lesbian who split with her partner after adopting the woman's biological children must pay child support, the Indiana Court of Appeals has ruled.

The woman adopted her partner's children in 1997. A few years after their breakup, she tried to vacate the adoption. Around the same time, the children's biological mother, who had remarried and divorced a man, filed for child support.

A three-judge panel ruled Wednesday that the woman who adopted the children must contribute to the cost of raising them.

"Whether a parent is a man or a woman, homosexual or heterosexual, or adoptive or biological, in assuming that role, a person also assumes certain responsibilities, obligations, and duties," Judge John G. Baker wrote in a 22-page ruling.

more

[cosmicdot]

1. with rights come responsibilities

will the MSM/CM (corp. media) be breaking any "Heterosexual Man Who Split With Partner Must Pay Child Support for Adopted Children" news today?

[Ellen Forradalom]

14. Probably The Onion

Sounds like an Onion headline.

[LinuxInsurgent]

22. "come great responsibilities"

oh...i thought you were talking of Spiderman here...

[BrainRants]

2. Will the wingnutz defend her right NOT to pay child support?

Seeing that she's not a biological parent and the bible says that marriage is between a man and woman and only a married man and woman should procreate so calling her a parent doesn't count?

Personally, I agree with the judge. Just curious how many wingut heads are exploding trying to noodle this one through.

Just my curiosity with a little sarcasm...

[tcoursen]

9. right wingers

Right wingers will say that she shouldn't have been able to adopted the kids in the first place, so whatever happens after that doesn't really matter.

[Straight Shooter]

3. With payment of child support, she should be entitled to visitation rights

Therefore, the judge is ruling that she is fit to be with the children, and in essence is saying that her expression of sexuality is not an issue. Baker in fact referred to her as a "parent."

I consider this ruling to be a good thing as far as setting a precedent for the rights of homosexuals, if I'm interpreting it correctly.

[BrainRants]

4. I'm no lawyer (and I'm straight) but I read it that way too.

I agree, I think it's a good thing.

[tcoursen]

6. Support = fit to be with them

I don't think that this necessarily means that she is fit to be with them. Aren't there cases, say an abusive father, where the guy has money is order to pay support, but doesn't have visitation rights?

I guess it makes sense that the judge would rule this way. The state allows for adoptions. The woman adopted those kids, and with that comes responsibilities. It does suck for her, but hey she adopted the kids. It seems to me that the judge was consistant in applying laws.

[daleo]

7. I don't know if visitation is necessarily (legally) tied to child support.

Usually they go together, but I don't think they have to. Nonetheless it does seem like the ruling furthers the notion of homosexual parental rights.

[sadiesworld]

19. You are correct.

Generally, child support and visitation are not interdependent. But I do agree that this case adds to a growing body of law which recognizes rights and responsibilities for gay couples. :)

[ckramer]

8. But what if the reason of split was that she doesn't want to see that kid

again?

[w13rd0]

12. If that was the reason for the split...

...that's f'd up. Sorry, I can't decide one day I "don't want to see my kids again" and then skip away free of all responsibility. Well, I could, but it would be against the law.

[Blue to the bone]

10. I think you shoot straight.............Shooter n/t

[w13rd0]

11. I agree that this is good...

...with rights come responsibility. Your interpretation seems on the mark.

[saltpoint]

17. Great post, Straight Shooter.

I'm with you 100%.

[Straight Shooter]

18. Thanks for the feedback.

I would also hope that it would open up other avenues for homosexuals to claim legal rights.

[saltpoint]

27. Yes -- I thought that was your range on this one --

-- and I agree. 'Marriage' and 'Civil Union' are terms which should congeal partners' rights across the board -- visitation, inheritance, etc., and equally, confer the responsibilities of citizenship, including child support.

[Liberal Veteran]

5. I think that's right.

She adopted the kids. She accepted the responsibility and that responsibility doesn't end because of divorce.

[Boomer]

13. Sound ruling

If we want straight society to respect our desire to get married or to obtain other equal treatment under the law, then we need to take our relationships seriously, too.

[LinuxInsurgent]

15. same sex marriage is a bitch, huh?

"Gay and Lesbian people have the right to be as miserable as the rest of us"

Chris Rock

[pschoeb]

16. They weren't married nor could they be

There is no gay marriage now in Indiana nor was there in 1997. This is about adoption. Once you adopt a child you are responsible for them. It would be nice though if the adopted gay couple could have had the benefits of marriage though.

[LinuxInsurgent]

21. i understand...

it was a tongue in cheek joke at the fact that gays are finding out that there's downsides to the whole civil union/marriage thing. That's all.

[IronLionZion]

24. hehe, and something like 1/2 of all marriages end in divorce

gays and lesbians should be careful what they wish for :P

just kidding,

I agree with the judge on this case. That woman is a parent and should pay child support and visit her adopted children. Gays and lesbians ought to have these legal rights even if they can't have "marriage".

hmm...and this happened in the bloody red state of Indiana

[Maat]

20. I adopted my child.

I'm her 'real' parent, as is my husband. If we were to break up, the noncustodial parent would pay support. You betcha.

Now, the retired social worker in me says that, absent a protection issue (as long as she's not abusive), she will get visitation rights.

The law clerk in me says that this is good legal precedent for gay and lesbian parents, especially adoptive ones.

Her obligations have been recognized, and so, her rights will be. That's usually the way it works, anyway.

[ausiedownunderground]

23. Women who love women- Great.,but like men who like women!

This under law, should be "No different" to a Man/Women relationship! Exactly the same rules should apply under America's "Family Law Act". In America are you under "The No Fault" divorce law that we are here in OZ?. If you are,what are the rules? We have a set of rules that admittadely (i know i spelt this completely wrong) were set in 1975! Men and women and men and men and women and women "Fight" over everything based on these 1975 rules. We have a very "Adversarial" system, here in OZ, no matter what sex is competing!!!
This system is an absolute "Gold Mine" for lawyer's! So much of a "Gold Mine" that our government is under "Heavy Pressure" at this particular moment to actually "Look" At"! this 1975 Law Act!
It is actually "out of step" with our Oz 2005 culture! Thats 30 years ago since it was established. Prior to this 1975 law, the last "Divorce" law was set in 1949! here in Oz. There was not a "No Fault" clause recommendation in this Act. The "Leaver" was "hammered" while the "Leaveee" was exonorated for their supposed "Crimes"!

[Misunderestimator]

25. A bit ridiculous actually.... the woman married a man then waited

until after her divorce from that man a few years later to file for child support. I agree that the ex does have some responsibility, but why did the biological parent wait three years? And why isn't she suing the biological father for child support? Is she? Or the second husband?

My suspicion is that her ex-partner loved her and her children so much that she made the commitment to adopt them to protect them and to prove her loyalty and love. Then her partner, who was apparently straight before they met leaves her and marries a man. If I were in the ex's shoes, I would be pretty distraught by that, having given so much trust in the relationship. Then, on top of it, she waits a few years before she files. Fishy, fishy, fishy.

[Damien]

26. as strange as it sounds, this could be a good thing

It's a court recognizing that both women were "parents." In a way, this could help pave the way to make same-sex couple adoption easier, or ultimately even same-sex marraige.

In a nation that has laws based on precedent, that judge just set one that both women were parents -- together.

Not that that fact makes the situation any easier for either parent though -- but in the long term it could be interesting.