"Biological Mom Kept From Child in Lesbian Legal Case"
I had to read this article for a few reasons. First one being out of curiosity of the circumstances and also because this was settled in Florida which I am all too familiar with personally as a non-custodial mother of two.
I have to say this is quite an interesting predicament really... the title definitely makes one wonder how a biological mother can be kept from her child when lesbian/gay marriage in most US states is still under much heated debate. But I kept reading and discovered the unusual circumstances of the whole situation. It actually leads to a very ethical debate... who is really the parent. In Florida family law they do not call it custody anymore but parental sharing. I say whatever to that "concept" (based on personal experience). [Florida Family Law updated in 2008] But it is obvious from this case (and mine) that while the courts don't use the terms "custody" and "primary residence" but they still make decisions that are clearly custodial and giving or taking away those rights in one party altogether. That is at least my opinion.
But here's the deal with this news article.... who is the mother? The woman from whom the egg originated from or the woman who carried the child to term in her womb and gave birth? This is such a perplexing and the answer can create any different consequences given different scenarios.
First, let's say the woman who "supplied" the egg is the rightful mother and should be without a doubt given full custody. What's that to say about woman who donate eggs for other couples to have children? Do they have more rights than the woman who gave birth or what if that couple perish or worse case they do not want the child any more because they are going their separate ways yada yada but lets hope not. Does this mean all parental responsibility falls on the egg donor or can the donor claim such rights? I don't think so in most cases.
Second, the custody is given to the woman who birthed the child but not from her own eggs such as the Florida case. It is unfortunate but in today's world this is what will win (and has) because of one simple thing: the courts have no precedence to view the biological woman as a legal parental guardian. Why is that? Because same gender marriage is not recognized in Florida as well as some other states. Sounds unfair right...but its the truth. That is why the biological mother lost. If you replace the biological mother with a man and provide a marriage certificate then he would have all the parental rights unless voluntarily given up in the court of law.
So you can decide for yourself... should same sex marriage be allowed and recognized in the court of law? (Not the courts of religion?) All I can do is think of the child who is put in the middle of all this. She knows her biological mother but because the courts ruled no custodial/parental rights she will not have any contact without the court ruled parent allowing such. Which we all know doesn't always happen and this in this sad case isn't.
