It's been so long since I'd looked at the origin of this discussion I'd completely forgot the case is in Sweden. I'm sure you will be pleased to know, Pariah, that as of Aug. 23, 2005, no such legal ambiguity exists in California.

Quote:

Court Grants Equal Rights to Same Sex Parents

Bob Egelko, SF Chronicle Staff Writer

The California Supreme Court broke new legal ground for same-sex parents Monday by ruling that lesbian and gay partners who plan a family and raise a child together should be considered legal parents after a breakup, with the same rights and responsibilities as heterosexual parents.

Three weeks after issuing a precedent-setting decision banning business discrimination against domestic partners, the justices took another step toward equal treatment for the tens of thousands of California households headed by same-sex couples. The court became the first in the nation to grant full parental status to same-sex partners regardless of their marital status or biological connection with their children.

"We perceive no reason why both parents of a child cannot be women,'' said Justice Carlos Moreno, writing for the majority in three related rulings issued Monday.

It was a bold statement by a normally cautious court -- although, as Moreno pointed out, the Legislature said essentially the same thing in a new law that gave domestic partners most of the same rights as spouses, including parental rights. Monday's rulings went a step further and granted parental status to members of couples who had separated before the law took effect in January.

In each of the three cases, the court said, lesbian partners had cooperated in conceiving and rearing children in a family setting and, thus, were both legal parents -- entitling them to visitation over an ex-partner's objections and requiring them to pay child support. The ruling would apply equally to gay men who agreed to raise a child together.

Quoting county government officials who argued for child support in one of the cases, the court said, "A person who actively participates in bringing children into the world, takes the children into her home and holds them out as her own, and receives and enjoys the benefits of parenthood, should be responsible for the support of those children -- regardless of gender or sexual orientation.''

Courts in other states have granted visitation and other parental rights to same-sex partners who had bonded with their child, ruling that such a nurturing adult may be considered a "psychological parent'' even if not biologically related to the child.

But those rulings did not establish full parent-child relationships, which include such rights as inheritance, Social Security and health insurance coverage for children as well as custody and visitation for parents.

Monday's rulings are the first in the nation to recognize complete parental status for same-sex partners who raise a child together, said Shannon Minter, legal director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights, which took part in all three cases.

"This is one of those moments of legal history in the making,'' he said. "The decisions are going to be important not just in California but across the country.''

The court did not discuss same-sex marriage, an issue it may address next year in lawsuits by gay and lesbian couples and the city of San Francisco challenging the constitutionality of a state law that defines marriage as the union of a man and a woman.

Those suits could be derailed, however, by initiatives now in circulation that would lock the ban on same-sex marriage into the state Constitution and also repeal the newly established domestic-partner rights. A lawyer who opposed the expansion of parental rights in the three cases called Monday's rulings "another stepping-stone for same-sex marriage'' that showed the need for action by the voters.

"By saying that children can have two moms, the court has undermined the family'' and has "underscored the importance of amending California's Constitution to preserve marriage as one man and one woman,'' said attorney Mathew Staver of Liberty Counsel. He added, however, that the proposed initiatives probably wouldn't affect Monday's rulings, which focused on parent- child relationships rather than the couples' marital status or gender.

"These rulings recognize that these children have the same rights as the children of opposite-sex couples in maintaining ties to the people who helped raise them and presumably love them,'' said Tom Dresslar, spokesman for Attorney General Bill Lockyer, whose office argued for parental status in the case of a lesbian mother seeking child support. "The rulings also properly recognize the diverse nature of family relationships in today's world.''

The rulings represent a change of course for California courts, which have generally regarded only biological parents as legal parents, regularly citing the state Supreme Court's statement in 1993 that a child can have only one natural mother.

But Moreno, in one of Monday's rulings, said the 1993 observation in a surrogate-parent case was meant only to resolve claims between two women -- the surrogate parent and the childless wife who signed the surrogacy contract -- and did not preclude recognition of two lesbian parents.

Each of the cases in Monday's decisions identified the plaintiffs and defendants by their initials to protect their children's privacy.

In the case handled by Lockyer, partners Elisa B. and Emily B. had children in 1997 and 1998, respectively, using the same sperm donor, and raised them together before separating in 1999. Elisa agreed to provide financial support whenever she could for her stay-at-home partner's twins -- one of them seriously ill -- but stopped making payments 18 months after the couple separated.

Reversing a lower-court ruling, the Supreme Court said Elisa was a legal parent of the children she had helped to plan and raise, and must pay $1,815 a month in child support. El Dorado County sued Elisa for support after Emily applied for welfare.

"We were doing everything we possibly could to form a family,'' Emily B. said at a news conference after the ruling. Noting that children of an opposite-sex couple would clearly have been entitled to support in the same situation, she said the court recognized the needs of "children who were invisible.''

Elisa B.'s lawyer was unavailable for comment.

In a second case, the court said a Los Angeles woman, Kristine H., was bound by a pre-birth agreement she signed with her partner, Lisa R., saying both would be parents of the child Kristine was carrying. After their split nearly two years after the baby was born, Kristine opposed Lisa's request for visitation and custody, but the court said Kristine had taken the benefits of the agreement -- Lisa's initial help in raising the child -- and must accept the burdens.