Same-sex custody battle could change Florida law
By JAMES L. ROSICA - Associated Press
TALLAHASSEE, Florida (AP) — A custody battle in Florida between two lesbians could fuel the growing national debate over the definition of motherhood.
It also might force state lawmakers to reconsider a 19-year-old law regarding the rights of sperm and egg donors.
The women, now in their 30s and known in court papers only by their initials, were both law enforcement officers in Florida. One partner donated an egg that was fertilized and implanted in the other. That woman gave birth in 2004, nine years into their relationship.
But the Brevard County couple separated two years later, and the birth mother eventually left Florida with the child without telling her former lover. The woman who donated the egg and calls herself the biological mother finally tracked them down in Australia with the help of a private detective.
Their fight over the now 8-year-old girl is before the state Supreme Court, which has not announced whether it will consider the case. A trial judge ruled for the birth mother and said the biological mother has no parental rights under state law, adding he hoped his decision would be overturned.
The 5th District Court of Appeal in Daytona Beach obliged, siding with the biological mother and saying both women have parental rights.
At issue is the 1993 state law meant to regulate sperm and egg donation. Scholars debate whether the constitutional right to procreate includes outside-the-body technologies used to conceive.
Full story: http://news.yahoo.com/same-sex-custody- ... 46936.html
Same-sex custody battle could change Florida law
-
Gaybutton
- Posts: 21592
- Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2010 11:21 am
- Location: Thailand
- Has thanked: 2 times
- Been thanked: 1322 times
Re: Same-sex custody battle could change Florida law
The Courts in the US have struggled with these concepts for years but I'm fairly certain that the outcome of the case won't have anything to do with their sexuality.
Lower courts are generally required to follow the precedents established by the higher courts. I'm guessing (just a guess, I didn't read the opinion) that the lower court judge in this case mistakenly applied prior appellate rulings dealing with commercial donors (where a stranger gives eggs or sperm to a clinic often in exchange for some money). I can understand the lower court doing that - following prior precedent - but he or she is not required to do that when common sense says that it shouldn't be done. This wasn't a commercial transaction - the egg donor was a rather vital part of the relationship that produced the child.
Lower courts are generally required to follow the precedents established by the higher courts. I'm guessing (just a guess, I didn't read the opinion) that the lower court judge in this case mistakenly applied prior appellate rulings dealing with commercial donors (where a stranger gives eggs or sperm to a clinic often in exchange for some money). I can understand the lower court doing that - following prior precedent - but he or she is not required to do that when common sense says that it shouldn't be done. This wasn't a commercial transaction - the egg donor was a rather vital part of the relationship that produced the child.