Supreme Court Decision Leaves Gay Divorce Questions Unanswered

The recent Supreme Court rulings regarding gay marriage sent shockwaves through the family law world earlier this week. The overturning of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) was especially influential and will lead to massive changes in the way gay couples receive federal benefits and pay federal taxes.

One thing that will not change for the better for same sex couples is the process of divorce. In fact, legal experts say neither the DOMA ruling nor the Prop 8 case will make the process of divorce easier for gay couples. Because the Supreme Court did not rule more broadly, making same-sex marriage legal nationwide, then those married couples who do not currently reside in a state that recognizes gay marriage will have to seek a divorce in a state that does.

This back and forth means that gay divorces will remain lengthier and costlier than heterosexual splits. This is especially the case because most states have a residency requirement for divorce, meaning at least one spouse needs to establish residency in that state for a requisite period of time before the courts will agree to hear a divorce petition. For instance, in California one party must reside in the state for a period of at least six months before the family law courts will hear a divorce claim. Thankfully, there are some exceptions to that rule though, including Washington, D.C. which allows divorce without residency for couples whose marriage is not recognized in their home state.

Issues revolving around child custody will also remain complicated for same-sex couples, especially in cases where both parents have not jointly adopted the child. For instance, a non-biological parent may not receive automatic visitation rights in many states if they have not formally adopted the child, despite acting as the parent for a number of years. It is for this reason that joint adoption is so critical, as it would be heartbreaking for one parent to discover in the midst of a divorce that they have no rights to spend time with a child they love.

If you find yourself facing the prospect of complicated divorce and have questions about your rights and options, contact an experienced Ohio family law attorney who can help guide you through the difficult process. Count on the expertise of Twinsburg family law attorney Carol Lee Stephan.

Source: “Supreme Court simplifies gay divorce,” by Quentin Fottrell, published at MarketWatch.com.

See Our Related Blog Posts:

Family Law Fails to Keep Pace With Modern Families

Mom and Dad (and Mom): Florida Judge Approves Unconventional Family

Morality Clause In Texas Divorce Case Stops Lesbian Couple From Cohabitating

A Texas judge recently issued a surprising ruling saying that a lesbian would not be permitted to continue living in the same house due to a morality clause found in the divorce papers of one of the two women.

Such morality clauses are common not only in Texas, but even seen in some Ohio divorce cases where the parents are worried about exposing children to new romantic partners. The clauses are meant to ensure that parents are legally prevented from bringing future boyfriends or girlfriends over to spend the night while the children are present.

In most instances, the way to bypass this provision is to go ahead and get married to your partner. This works because morality clauses cannot prevent anyone from cohabitating with a spouse. The problem here is that in Texas marriage is not an option for gay couples so the lesbian partners have no way around the strict language contained in the divorce decree.

Judge John Roach heard the dispute regarding the 2011 divorce signed by Carolyn Compton and ordered Carolyn and her female partner, Page Price, to move out of their shared home. The issue was that the two women lived together in a home along with Comptons’ two daughters, something that led Compton’s ex-husband to take the matter to court. Compton’s ex husband argued that the morality clause found in their divorce decree was gender-neutral and said it should be enforced for the benefit of the children.

Compton’s attorney tried to argue that the morality clause was unconstitutional not only for gay couples, but straight divorcees as well. The attorney claimed that the law unreasonably limits parents’ abilities to make decisions for their own lives.

On the surface, the idea behind a morality clause is a good one: to protect children in an Ohio child custody case from a revolving door of romantic partners. It goes without saying that this would be detrimental to the children, though exactly how damaging is difficult to understand.

However, the problem with such morality clauses is that there are far too many loopholes in even the best drafted documents. Further, they cannot stop the children from being introduced to new significant others in a parent’s life, only stop them from spending the night. Finally, the clauses allow yet another intrusion into the lives of a couple who have likely already had intimate details paraded before a room full of strangers.

If you find yourself facing the prospect of complicated divorce and have questions about your rights and options, contact an experienced Ohio family law attorney who can help guide you through the difficult process. Count on the expertise of Twinsburg family law attorney Carol L. Stephan.

Source: “Texas judge says lesbian couple can’t cohabitate, cites morality clause in divorce papers,” by The Associated Press, WashingtonPost.com.

See Our Related Blog Posts:

Ohio Child Support Arrearages Resemble Modern Day Debtors Prison

Online Actions Land Two Wisconsin Men In Hot Water

Surrogate Abortion Case Raises Concerns About Enforceability of Surrogacy Contracts

A recent and tragic fight between concerned biological parents and a protective surrogate mother made national headlines after it was discovered that the child had serious health defects. The couple wanted their surrogate to have an abortion; a plan she initially agreed to but then had a change of heart. The surrogate then decided to flee to a different state that did not acknowledge surrogacy contracts so that she could have the child and put it up for adoption. The parents then launched a suit to get control of their child. A complicated and emotionally exhausting custody fight that touches on important concerns for those with fertility problems.

The case began when the couple was introduced to Crystal Kelley. Kelley needed money and was happy to have a child for the couple who were looking for their fourth after the wife had fertility problems. Though things started well, it was quickly discovered that the baby Kelley was carrying had severe disabilities. Doctors said the baby would be born with a cleft palate, brain development problems and serious heart defects. Multiple surgeries would be required and even then, the child was given only a 25 percent chance of leading a normal life.

The worried couple, who had already raised several premature children, decided to offer Kelley $10,000 to abort the baby and spare it from a life of pain. The woman initially agreed to do it for $15,000 but when the couple balked, changed her mind entirely and said her religion would not allow her to go through with it. The couple then sued to enforce the original surrogacy contract.

The original agreement specifically stated that the woman would agree to an abortion if the fetus had a severe abnormality, something Kelley later decided not to follow through with. Rather than stay and lose the inevitable case, she picked up and moved to Michigan where surrogacy contracts are not considered valid.

The surrogate eventually gave birth to the girl who suffered from even worse problems than were feared. Severe physical and brain deformities were present as well as serious developmental abnormalities. Kelley located a woman who was willing to adopt the child but still had the couple’s custody suit to contend with.

Several weeks after the birth, the couple relented to the adoption and agreed to give up their rights if they were allowed to maintain some kind of contact with the girl. The good news is that the young girl is now alive and living with her new adopted mother. The biological parents have visited the girl several times, despite the devastating custody battle.

Though this represents one family’s tragic struggle, it also sheds light on larger issues about what can happen when a surrogacy situation goes awry. As more and more couples suffer fertility issues and consider nontraditional ways of having a family, the case shows how much couples need to plan ahead and attempt to plan for a host of unknowns.

If you find yourself facing the prospect of complicated divorce and have questions about your rights and options, contact an experienced Ohio family law attorney who can help guide you through the difficult process. Count on the expertise of Twinsburg family law attorney Carol L. Stephan.

Source: “Surrogate mother refused abortion: Right? Wrong? Damned to hell?,” by Aly Neel, published at WashingtonPost.com.

See Our Related Blog Posts:

Family Law Fails to Keep Pace With Modern Families

Mom and Dad (and Mom): Florida Judge Approves Unconventional Family

Family Law Fails to Keep Pace With Modern Families

Though researchers tell us everyday that Americans increasingly resemble the families seen on “Modern Family,” our judicial system in many ways appears stuck in the time of “Leave It to Beaver.” Gay rights and gay parenting have changed by leaps and bounds over the past few decades. A whopping 41% of all new births are among single women. The idea of what a family is has changed a lot in the minds of many, but our legal system has been slow to warm to the changes.

A good example of the gap between modern realities and the legal system is occurring right now in New York. A state seen as quite progressive is stuck with outdated family law ideas. The New York Times discussed the case of a man named Jonathan Sporn, a pharmaceuticals exec living in Manhattan.

Dr. Sporn filed a petition last month saying that he and his then girlfriend, Leann Leutner, had a baby boy last summer. The couple had conception problems and used a sperm donor. The two had been dating for a number of years and had been living together since 2010, but after having each been divorced once before, the two decided to raise the child as a non-married couple.

The problem arose in December when Leutner, a lawyer with a prominent New York firm, took the child and left the apartment she shared with Sporn for a new apartment in New Jersey. Only a few days later Leutner killed herself. The death was shocking, but not totally out of the blue. She had suffered from psychological problems off and on for years and they were made worse due to her severe postpartum depression.

Since Leutner died, the baby has been with child protective services and is in foster care in New York City despite desperate pleas by Sporn to have the child returned to him. Leutner’s sister, who lives in Chicago, has also filed a petition asking for custody. The judge assigned to the case agreed that visits by social workers confirmed that either case would be an acceptable home for the child, yet the baby has not been given to Sporn because he is technically viewed as “destitute.” The term refers to those children with no known parents, a curious definition given that Sporn is alive and well.

The problem is that under New York law, Dr. Sporn has no real relationship to the child. He was never married to the baby’s mother and has no biological connection to the boy. He also had not yet taken any formal legal steps to adopt him. The case resembles many cases of gay parents who never formally adopted their children and then are thrown into custody cases when their relationships sour and are shocked to discover they have no legal parental rights.

Fifty years ago being an illegitimate child was a serious matter that came with lots of legal limits. The U.S. Supreme Court took action to protect the children of unmarried couples from legal harm but this and other recent cases prove that there is still a lot of ground yet to be covered. While we may enjoy Modern Family on television, our court system has yet to adapt to modern life.  

If you find yourself facing the prospect of complicated divorce and have questions about your rights and options, contact an experienced Ohio family law attorney who can help guide you through the difficult process. Count on the expertise of Twinsburg family law attorney Carol L. Stephan.

Source: “When the Law Says a Parent Isn’t a Parent,” by Gina Bellafante, published at NYTimes.com.

See Our Related Blog Posts:

Mom and Dad (and Mom): Florida Judge Approves Unconventional Family

How to Establish Parental Rights for Unmarried Fathers in Ohio