I'll start with this one, since family law is something I do.
2) Two Massachusetts women marry. One of them becomes pregnant. The couple split up, and the woman who bore the child moves to Connecticut. The other woman sues for visitation rights. What should the Connecticut courts do? "
You said they will do nothing, and should do nothing.
One of the functions of marriage is to form a family. Not all marriages do, but that's a primary function. When a couple has a child, they are both parents. Even though teh wife does the actual bearing, even if the husband doesn't provide the sperm, even, in fact, if the woman goes out and has an affair and another man is in fact known to bethe father. Still, the husband is presumed to be the father.
If this is a legal marriage, then the non-child-bearing spouse is the legal parent of the child. Maybe not father, but by marring homosexuals we've abandoned gender terms and have to resort to child-bearing parent (cbp) and non-child-bearing parent (ncbp).
If I were the ncbp's lawyer, I would go to Ct. and argue, and I hope win, the case that the cbp intended to establish a dual parent-child relationship when they got married, and that it's in the best interests of the child to continue that relationship with both members of the parental family.
Why is it best for society and for the child that the cbp can eviscerate the child's rights to two parents, and th ncbp's rights to be a parent of a child of the marriage, just by moving across a state line? |
