New Jasper pix are up. Enjoy 2 Halloween previews as well as Jasper, leaves, and JasperInLeaves.
Tuesday, October 30, 2007
Oh, THE CUTENESS
New Jasper pix are up. Enjoy 2 Halloween previews as well as Jasper, leaves, and JasperInLeaves.
Tuesday, October 16, 2007
Am I Mama, or am I just Grace?
As the legal recognition of the Mama-Jasper relationship continues to flounder in Nevernever Land, many have begun to question our status. Am I Jasper’s Mama, a full-fledged real and true legal parent to my kid, assuring both of us that our bond cannot be severed, that I will always be tied to her and she to me? Or am I just her biological mother’s ex-wife, a nice lady who helped conceive and deliver her into the world, who has no legal ties, obligations, responsibilities and privileges to her? Here in Massachusetts Jasper’s moms have the right to marry, and to legally adopt her to form a cohesive undisputable bond. When adoption does not happen, for whatever reason, there are two statuses that can be awarded / applied / assigned to the non-bio parent: de facto parent, and parent by estoppel. What the heck do these terms mean?
From the Massachusetts Bar Association:
De facto parent:
"A child may be a member of a nontraditional family in which he is parented by a legal parent and a de facto parent. A de facto parent is one who has no biological relation to the child, but has participated in the child's life as a member of the child's family. The de facto parent resides with the child and, with the consent and encouragement of the legal parent, performs a share of caretaking functions at least as great as the legal parent." Critical to the court’s determination of whether or not a non biological or legal parent is a de facto parent is whether a “disruption in the adult-child relationship is potentially harmful to the child’s best interest.” Furthermore, there is an American Law Institute Principle of Family Law that would require the non-biological or non-adoptive parent to have lived with the child for at least two years in order to qualify for de facto parent status.
Parent by estoppel:
A.H. v. M.P., 447 Mass. 828 (2006). A woman who never adopted the child of her same-sex partner, "although she was well aware of the importance of doing so," and was not the primary caretaker for the child, did not have a legal right to visitation or a support agreement as a "de facto parent." Further, the court declined to adopt a "parent by estoppel," theory as defined in the ALI Principles of the Law of Family Dissolution § 2.03 (2002). saying, in part, "the parent by estoppel principle is a most dramatic intrusion into the rights of fit parents to care for their child as they see fit." and "parent by estoppel status is most appropriate where "adoption is not legally available or possible.""
So what does this mean in the case of Jasper and Mama? I spoke with an attorney and she agreed that the legal landscape is murky, but had some definitive things to say about our situation. There is much evidence to support the de facto parent status for us. We had a commitment ceremony in 1998, before marriage was legal for us. Jill and I early on (1999 or 2000) signed co-parenting agreements that outlined our plans for building a family, and our wishes if our relationship ended. (It is interesting to note that these documents were signed when I was trying to get pregnant.) We bought a home together, equally, in 1999, with the goal of filling it with love and children. In 2003 we were legally married in Toronto, and that marriage became legal in May 2004 in Massachusetts. We took on all of our conception struggles and adventures together, equally, whether it was at home conception or through a medical practice specializing in the particular challenges of lesbian fertility. When Jill became pregnant with Jasper we attended all prenatal visits and classes together. I assisted in the delivery of our daughter (no, really, I pulled her out! It was amazing!). Jasper’s donor, a friend of ours, quickly signed documents surrendering his parental claims. With few exceptions, both of Jasper’s moms have been present at her pediatrician visits, her daycare events, and make decisions together about her health and well being.
Where things get muddled is in the degeneration of our marriage. Currently we would both say that we are separated. We still all live in the condo together, and it is on the market for sale. Our plan is to buy a two-family house so that Jill and I can have our separate spaces and repair and get on with our separate lives, while at the same time being close and completely available for Jasper. Because of the emotional turmoil of our split, I spend a bit of time out of the house – classes on Mondays and time away on the weekends. Jill has responded to the emotional upheaval in her own ways; one effect has been for her to cling more tightly to our daughter. We are trying to break this spiral, understanding that it is not good for any of us, and in particular for Jasper. I do not have the time that I want to spend with Jasper – and time where the three of are together is difficult, and Jill and I try to maintain even keels for Jasper.
Jasper will readily tell you that she has “TWO Mommies” as she tries to hold up two fingers. One legal, the other of unknown legal status. So where does that leave us? I have no idea, but hopefully we will figure it out amicably, and soon
References:
http://www.mlgba.org/pages/recent.php
From the Massachusetts Bar Association:
De facto parent:
"A child may be a member of a nontraditional family in which he is parented by a legal parent and a de facto parent. A de facto parent is one who has no biological relation to the child, but has participated in the child's life as a member of the child's family. The de facto parent resides with the child and, with the consent and encouragement of the legal parent, performs a share of caretaking functions at least as great as the legal parent." Critical to the court’s determination of whether or not a non biological or legal parent is a de facto parent is whether a “disruption in the adult-child relationship is potentially harmful to the child’s best interest.” Furthermore, there is an American Law Institute Principle of Family Law that would require the non-biological or non-adoptive parent to have lived with the child for at least two years in order to qualify for de facto parent status.
Parent by estoppel:
A.H. v. M.P., 447 Mass. 828 (2006). A woman who never adopted the child of her same-sex partner, "although she was well aware of the importance of doing so," and was not the primary caretaker for the child, did not have a legal right to visitation or a support agreement as a "de facto parent." Further, the court declined to adopt a "parent by estoppel," theory as defined in the ALI Principles of the Law of Family Dissolution § 2.03 (2002). saying, in part, "the parent by estoppel principle is a most dramatic intrusion into the rights of fit parents to care for their child as they see fit." and "parent by estoppel status is most appropriate where "adoption is not legally available or possible.""
So what does this mean in the case of Jasper and Mama? I spoke with an attorney and she agreed that the legal landscape is murky, but had some definitive things to say about our situation. There is much evidence to support the de facto parent status for us. We had a commitment ceremony in 1998, before marriage was legal for us. Jill and I early on (1999 or 2000) signed co-parenting agreements that outlined our plans for building a family, and our wishes if our relationship ended. (It is interesting to note that these documents were signed when I was trying to get pregnant.) We bought a home together, equally, in 1999, with the goal of filling it with love and children. In 2003 we were legally married in Toronto, and that marriage became legal in May 2004 in Massachusetts. We took on all of our conception struggles and adventures together, equally, whether it was at home conception or through a medical practice specializing in the particular challenges of lesbian fertility. When Jill became pregnant with Jasper we attended all prenatal visits and classes together. I assisted in the delivery of our daughter (no, really, I pulled her out! It was amazing!). Jasper’s donor, a friend of ours, quickly signed documents surrendering his parental claims. With few exceptions, both of Jasper’s moms have been present at her pediatrician visits, her daycare events, and make decisions together about her health and well being.
Where things get muddled is in the degeneration of our marriage. Currently we would both say that we are separated. We still all live in the condo together, and it is on the market for sale. Our plan is to buy a two-family house so that Jill and I can have our separate spaces and repair and get on with our separate lives, while at the same time being close and completely available for Jasper. Because of the emotional turmoil of our split, I spend a bit of time out of the house – classes on Mondays and time away on the weekends. Jill has responded to the emotional upheaval in her own ways; one effect has been for her to cling more tightly to our daughter. We are trying to break this spiral, understanding that it is not good for any of us, and in particular for Jasper. I do not have the time that I want to spend with Jasper – and time where the three of are together is difficult, and Jill and I try to maintain even keels for Jasper.
Jasper will readily tell you that she has “TWO Mommies” as she tries to hold up two fingers. One legal, the other of unknown legal status. So where does that leave us? I have no idea, but hopefully we will figure it out amicably, and soon
References:
http://www.mlgba.org/pages/recent.php
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
