Ex-lesbian Ex-wife, Now Man, Ruled De Facto Parent

Brittany Conover gave birth to her son Jaxon Conover in 2010, who was conceived by artificial insemination without a legal father, and thereafter "married" her lesbian lover Michelle Conover, from whom she is now divorced.  However, last week, the Maryland Court of Appeals ruled that Michelle Conover, who now claims to be a transgender named Michael and is suing for visitation rights to Jaxon, is the child's "de facto" parent.

“Gays and lesbians are particularly 'ill-served by rigid definitions of parenthood'...When gay or lesbian relationships end, at least one member will find itself in a court system ill-prepared to recognize its existence and to formulate rules to resolve its disputes.”
-- Judge Sally D. Adkins wrote in the majority opinion

For background, read Judge Declares Deceased Lesbian Married to Lover

Also read Sperm Donor Must Support Lesbians' Child in Kansas

And read Creating Synthetic Humans: Secret Harvard Meeting

-- From "Maryland's highest court recognizes 'de facto' parents" by The Associated Press 7/9/16

Maryland's highest court has ruled an adult who is intimately connected to a child's upbringing is entitled to visitation and a share of custody, if the child's best interests are served.

The Court of Appeals decision overturns an eight-year-old ruling. In that decision, judges declined to grant de facto parental rights to unrelated individuals, unless they could prove exceptional circumstances.

The boy [Jaxon] was born six months before [the two women] married and 17 months before they divorced.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "In win for gay couples, Maryland high court recognizes ‘de facto’ parents’ rights" by Fenit Nirappil, Washington Post 7/8/16

De facto parents can include the partner of a lesbian who undergoes artificial insemination, a gay man whose partner adopts a child from a country that does not allow same-sex couples to jointly adopt, or a straight man who raises a child with a woman for years without formal adoption.

R. Martin Palmer Jr., an attorney for Brittany Conover, said the court usurped the role of lawmakers in defining a parent and may have created a situation in which stepfathers can take control of children from capable mothers.

“Seeking to serve the needs of the LGBT community has created a bad situation for traditional families and their children,” Palmer said.

Nancy Polikoff, a family-law professor at American University who studies LGBT issues, said the ruling does not address all issues nontraditional parents face, including what happens when parent split up before an artificially conceived child is born and whether the children of non-biological parents qualify for benefits after their death.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Maryland’s Highest Court Establishes ‘De Facto Parenthood’ in Lesbian Divorce and Custody Case" by Jeannette Richard, CNSNews.com 7/12/16

In the decision, the court established de facto parenthood for a person who formed a “parent-like” relationship with the child that “the biological or adoptive parent consented to and fostered,” provided that “the petitioner and the child lived together in the same household, that the petitioner assumed obligations of parenthood by taking significant responsibility for the child’s care, education and development, including contributing towards the child’s support, without expectation of financial compensation, and that the petitioner has been in a parental role for a length of time sufficient to have established with the child a bonded, dependent relationship parental in nature.”

Michelle/Michael filed a court request for visitation rights claiming that she had standing as a parent under Maryland’s definition of “father” for children of unmarried parents. Michelle still identified as a woman at that time.

In 2013, the circuit court ruled that “[Michelle] is in fact a female, had not adopted the child, and in no way was related to the child, thus not sufficiently establishing that she could be the ‘father’ of the child.”

The lower court ruled that Michelle did not have parental standing, but as a third party, must first show that Brittany was an unfit parent or that exceptional circumstances existed in order to claim visitation rights.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "The 'de facto' parent" an editorial by The Baltimore Sun 7/10/16

Since the issue of de facto parenting isn't addressed under existing statute, the court endorsed standards set forth under a Wisconsin Supreme Court decision: That the biological or adoptive parent consented to and fostered the third party's parent-like relationship, that they lived together in the same household, that the de facto parent took on significant responsibility for the child's care, education and development without expectation of financial reward, and the parental relationship lasted long enough for them to be bonded and the child to feel dependent.

Divorce and child custody decisions have always been a messy and difficult business with, as Judge Sally Adkins writes in the opinion, "grave implications for all parties." The case isn't resolved by the Court of Appeals ruling, only the legal standing of Michelle Conover who, according to a court filing, transitioned to living as a transgender man after the divorce. Now, the matter of visitation will be back in the hands of the lower court.

What constitutes a parent? Clearly, the answer to that question has evolved over time, and the law has failed to keep up with that social progress. . . .

To read the entire editorial above, CLICK HERE.

Also read Supreme Court Legalizes Sex With Animals in Canada

Massachusetts: Lesbian Arrested for Attempted Insemination of Wife

A woman who allegedly intended to artificially inseminate her wife with her brother's semen has been charged with domestic assault and battery.

Two observations: The wording of the article demonstrates the acceptance of same-sex "marriage" and notice that the dispute centers on procreation.

-- From "Insemination fight ends in wife's arrest" by Conor Berry, Berkshire Eagle Staff 3/13/09

Stephanie K. Lighten, 26, was released on personal recognizance after denying the allegations . . .

Jennifer A. Lighten, 33, told police that Stephanie Lighten, her wife, was "all liquored up" when she returned to their Lincoln Street apartment, where the defendant then allegedly tried to use a syringe to inseminate her, according to a police report.

Jennifer told investigating officers that Stephanie "has been talking about trying to impregnate (her) for some time," police said.

Detective Thomas H. Harrington said Jennifer Lighten declined "to go forward with charges of assault with intent to rape" because she did not believe "Stephanie was going to sexually assault her with the syringe." However, Harrington informed the alleged victim that attempted rape charges could be filed if she changes her mind.

To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.

CA Christian Doctors Forced to Assist Homosexuality

California Supreme Court rules that homosexual rights trump doctors' rights of religious liberty; Doctors say they denied insemination because woman was single, not because she was gay.

-- From "California doctors can't refuse treatment to gays on religious grounds, court rules" by Maura Dolan, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer 8/19/08

Doctors may not discriminate against gays and lesbians in medical treatment, even if the procedures being sought conflict with physicians' religious beliefs, the California Supreme Court decided unanimously Monday.

"The 1st Amendment's right to the free exercise of religion does not exempt defendant physicians here from conforming their conduct to the . . . antidiscrimination requirements," Justice Joyce L. Kennard wrote for the court.

The decision stemmed from a lawsuit filed by Guadalupe T. Benitez, an Oceanside lesbian who lives with her partner and wanted to become pregnant with donated sperm.

The state high court said the doctors' constitutional rights to freedom of religion did not trump the state antidiscrimination law because the state has a compelling interest in ensuring full and equal access to medical care.

Robert Tyler, general counsel for Advocates for Faith and Freedom, predicted that the ruling would spur voters "to recognize the radical agenda of our opposition" and support a November ballot initiative that would amend the state Constitution to ban same-sex marriage in California. A state Supreme Court ruling in May made gay marriage legal.

-- From "Court: Lesbians' desires trump doctors' religious rights" © 2008 WorldNetDaily 8/18/08

Justice Joyce Kennard, who wrote the court's decision, said the Unruh Civil Rights Act "furthers California's compelling interest in ensuring full and equal access to medical treatment irrespective of sexual orientation."

But Karen England, executive director for Capitol Resource Institute, a California family policy advocacy group, said in a press release, "The California Supreme Court's decision proves that these activist judges are willing to deny our First Amendment religious freedom in order to create rights for homosexuals."

The ruling has some groups worrying that California will now use its civil rights laws to override the moral convictions of religious people across the state.

"It's implications appear to be far-reaching," said [the Pacific Justice Institute]. "For instance, the ruling probably means that, regardless of their beliefs, everyone in the state's wedding industry must service gay weddings, California family law attorneys must handle gay adoptions and same-sex divorces, and so on."

England added, "If homosexual marriage remains legal, the courts will soon start mandating homosexual marriage ceremonies in all churches."

To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.

My Daddy's Name is Donor

From "My Daddy's Name is Donor?" by Albert Mohler, posted 12/17/07 at albertmohler.com

The t-shirt on the toddler is meant to be an attention-getter . . . and it is. A picture of the boy wearing the t-shirt appeared first in the Chicago Tribune but now also in The Times [London]. The t-shirt reads, "My daddy's name is Donor."

As Catherine Bruton of The Times explains:

The T-shirt is offered by a company called Family Evolutions, founded by a lesbian couple whose son modelled the shirt. The co-founder, Stacey Harris, says that the T-shirt is empowering. "We want to lift the taboo surrounding donor conception so that kids don't feel that their coming into the world is a shameful secret," she says. "Kids who are empowered will grow up well-adjusted."

The "empowering" t-shirt is intended to mainstream the idea that the male agent in procreation now no longer deserves even a name. The sale of sperm is now so commonplace that it is now just one more consumer good -- and an increasing number of consumers are single women and lesbian couples who share an intention to have babies without a husband.

...This becomes all too clear when reports now indicate that a majority of those requesting and using Artificial Insemination by Donor [AID] are now single women and lesbian couples. A quick survey of the situation in major metropolitan areas will make that pretty clear. Sperm banks are now big business.

Read the rest of this commentary on Dr. Molher's blog.

Liberals Ask Themselves, "Why Don't Liberals Procreate?"

UPDATE 8/10/14 - The Extinction of Abortion Advocates: They Don't Procreate

From "Making moms: Can we feed the need to breed? -- Canada has a baby deficit. Will paying women to have more kids help?" by Lianne George, posted May 28, 2007 in Macleans

Canada's fertility rate has been in a free fall for decades. In recent years, though, it has hovered at an all-time low of roughly 1.5 children per woman (we need 2.1 if we're going to replace ourselves). Social analysts pin it on some jumble of female education and fiscal autonomy, secularization, birth control, Sex and the City, a heightened desire for personal freedom, and increasing uncertainty about bringing a child into a world plagued by terrorism, global warming and Lindsay Lohan. [Oops, forgot to mention abortion!] In a hyper-individualistic, ultra-commodified culture like ours, motherhood, for better and worse, is less a fact of life than just another lifestyle choice.

All over the developed world, the same pattern is apparent. Russia, Britain, Ireland, Australia, Spain, Italy and dozens of other countries are contending with fertility rates well below replacement levels. Forty per cent of female university graduates in Germany are childless. In Japan, where the birth rate has sunk to a record low of 1.26, family planning groups are blaming the Internet, charging that fertile men and women are spending too much time online, and not enough having sex.

In Canada, economists and demographers are already noting dysytopian, Children Of Men-tinged scenarios. Across the country, women on average aren't having their first child until the age of 31. Elementary schools and daycare facilities, without enough kids to fill the nap mats, are closing for business. Ontario's Ministry of Education predicts that, by 2010, total elementary and secondary school enrolment will drop by nearly 100,000 students from 2002 numbers. In New Brunswick, the province's death rate has overtaken its birth rate. And the economic implications of a disappearing population are substantial: analysts are estimating a shortage of 1.2 million workers by 2020. "For every two people about to retire in the coming decades," says Linda Duxbury, a professor at Carleton University's Sprott School of Business, "there will be less than one person to take their place, which will put significant strain on the health care system." Alberta, B.C. and the Maritimes are already feeling the crunch. "Demographers have known for ages this is coming," she says. "An issue like this takes decades to solve and we've really pushed the envelope on starting to deal with it."

In a quest to hold on to older workers, the Canadian government expunged the mandatory retirement age in December. But this move alone will not avert a labour crisis. Who, after all, wants to work a full-time job much past the age of 65? (Currently, only about six per cent of Canadians do so.) . . . Nor will immigration be the solution. At the moment, Statistics Canada reports that Canada's average of 240,000 new Canadian immigrants per year more than compensates for our dismal fertility rate. However, those studying long-range trends say this is nowhere near enough, particularly as global competition for skilled labour becomes more aggressive in the coming decades. "The numbers that we're talking about are phenomenal," says Duxbury. "Half a million to two-thirds of a million per year. I wonder, where are we going to get those immigrants from? Because most of the industrialized world is going through this same set of problems we are."

Faced with this odd conundrum -- a supply-and-demand crisis in which the suppliers (women) theoretically have the capacity to meet demand (for babies) but are opting not to -- economists and demographers are left scratching their heads. By now, just about every country in the developed world has implemented some policy or monetary incentives, ranging from baby bonuses to tax breaks. Still, the numbers fall. Short of establishing a Handmaid's Tale regime, they're wondering, what will it take to make women have babies? (And they're not talking just one.) . . . Exacerbating the financial hit for women is the fact that they, unlike men, lose income when they have a child -- a phenomenon David Ellwood [a professor of political economy and dean of the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University] calls the "motherhood penalty." In a study he co-authored, Ellwood tracked women's income over time, beginning in 1979, and determined that the salaries of university-educated women plateau after childbirth, resulting in a loss of 15 to 20 per cent in income during the subsequent 10 years. Men's wages, on the other hand, don't appear to be affected. "Why are the most educated women postponing children the most?" says Ellwood. "The answer is, it's not because they can't afford child care. They're in a better position to afford it than most people. I think a lot of it is more fundamental than that, which has to do with what having children does to their own economic futures and opportunities."

Disparities at work are no longer a male-female issue. These days, they are most explicitly expressed between the women who have children, and those who don't. Kids are the new glass ceiling. According to U.S. economist Sylvia Ann Hewlett, founding president of the Center for Work-Life Policy, only 74 per cent of "off-ramped" women seeking to rejoin the workforce are able to, and only 40 per cent of those return to full-time, professional jobs. A Cornell University study found that mothers are 44 per cent less likely to be hired than non-mothers with the same resumé, experience and qualifications. "It's no accident that the majority of male senior executives have kids and the majority of female senior executives don't," says Ellen Bravo, a renowned American feminist and author of the newly published Taking on the Big Boys. "It's a requirement for the job."

But it's not only women's lost income that policy wonks are going to have to consider. It's also that, although child-rearing is a multi-pronged job which, if done properly, benefits the family, the nation, and everyone in between, the bulk of the responsibility for undertaking the whole thing still sits squarely on a mother's shoulders. Even as we bemoan our plummeting birth rate, and the grim economic future it may bring, everything about the way we've organized our culture is designed to force women to choose between work and kids -- and to penalize them if they choose kids. [Liberals view it as a penalty, others view it as a blessing!] And so, these days, it's not just a matter of a woman wanting children; it's a matter of wanting them at the expense of everything else she's worked for. . . . In Vienna, researchers at the International Instutite for Applied Systems Analysis have developed a disquieting hypothesis called the "low fertility trap," which suggests that the causes of low fertility are self-perpetuating. They foresee the potential for the baby bust to spiral out of control for three reasons: first, negative population growth means there will be fewer women of child-bearing age in the future to produce more children. Second, young people have been socialized [a.k.a. "brainwashed"] to believe that the ideal family size is a small one, which means fewer couples will have more than one child. Finally, the aging population will place tremendous financial strain on younger cohorts -- who have been raised with higher material aspirations to begin with -- which will translate into fewer children, or none at all.

"In the next 20 years," says Harvard's Ellwood, "there will be no net new native-born workers in the so-called prime age of 24 to 55 in the United States. The only new workers will come from two places: older workers and immigrants. And most immigrants in nations like the U.S. have been low-skill. Canada has had more higher-skill immigrants." The issue is made more difficult by the fact that, among Americans in particular, there is wide-ranging discomfort with a liberal immigration policy right now. "[Immigrants] are in a world where there's concerns about terrorism, and worries about jobs being sent abroad. So it's a real challenge."

Here is where we bump up against the dark underbelly of the demography discussion: the fact that it's not so much about urging women to have babies as it is about urging the right women to have them -- and to preserve Western civilization in the process. As it happens, the group whose fertility rates are declining the fastest are those with the greatest social and financial prospects. That is, Western (well-assimilated, if not white) professionals with university degrees. [Any conservative who would make such statements would be in the unemployment line along with Don Imus.]
. . .
It's this type of economic reasoning, paired with an underlying xenophobic angst, that is spurring pro-fertility policy initiatives in developed nations around the world. In Poland, where the population has fallen by half a million since 2000, the government has begun offering up a modest sum of 1,000 zlotys (roughly $400) for each child a woman produces. In Italy, officials are offering a reward of $1,500 for each second child -- and even toying with the possibility of paying women not to go ahead with abortions.

Amazingly, the evidence suggests that the most successful policies have one thing in common: they don't try to pay women to procreate. Rather, they facilitate the careers of working mothers. They are premised on the idea that, the more value a society places on women's work inside and outside of the home, the more likely she is to want to contribute meaningfully in both spheres. In other words, take some of the load off of her shoulders and spread it around so that children become everybody's responsibility. Who would have thought that the most economically sound solution to a fertility crisis would be rooted in good old-fashioned feminism?

The liberals just don't "get it!" They'll be asking themselves the same question (in the title of this Blog posting) until they're extinct.

Read the rest of this article.

Thomas More Law Center: Doctors Should Not Be Forced To Artificially Inseminate Lesbians

From "Thomas More Law Center: Doctors Should Not Be Forced To Artificially Inseminate Lesbians" posted 4/3/07 at LifeSite.net

Michigan -- The Thomas More Law Center, a national public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, has submitted a friend of the court brief supporting the right of physicians to refuse to perform medical procedures that violate their sincerely held religious convictions. The brief was filed in a case pending before the California Supreme Court, North Coast Women’s Care v. Benitiz.

In that case Guadalupe Benitez, a lesbian, sued two doctors who refused to artificially inseminate her—alleging that the doctors discriminated against her because of her sexual orientation in violation of California’s civil rights act. The doctors assert that they cannot be held liable for refusing to provide treatment based upon their sincerely held religious convictions because California’s constitution protects their right to the free exercise of religion. Benitez is represented by the LAMBDA Legal Defense Fund, one of the leading organizations promoting the homosexual agenda.

According to Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel for the Thomas More Law Center, “Forcing doctors to violate their conscience smacks of Nazi Germany. Doctors are not ‘needles for hire.’ Benitez received treatment from other doctors. Her effort to punish these doctors is a mean-spirited effort to exact a pound of flesh from those who refuse to bow to the homosexual agenda based on sincerely held religious conviction.”

Patrick T. Gillen, the attorney who authored the brief for the Law Center, observed that the case has broad implications for religious liberty. He noted, “If the California Supreme Court accepts Bentiz’s argument, the protection that California’s constitution provides to the free exercise of religion will be practically meaningless. The California Supreme Court should hold that California’s religious liberty provision bars Benitez from holding these doctors liable for their refusal to provide medical care based upon their sincerely held religious convictions.”