Yesterday, the Michigan Court of Appeals remanded to the trial court with instructions that the trial court grant standing to a non-biological mother, in a same-sex relationship now broken, to seek custody, parenting time and child support. "Pursuant to the dictates of the United States Supreme Court in Obergefell v Hodges, ___ US ___; 135 S Ct 2584; 192 L Ed 2d 609 (2015), we remand this matter for proceedings consistent with this opinion."
In Jennifer Stankevich v Leanne Milliron, the parties entered into a same-sex marriage in Canada in July 2007. Before that date, defendant had been artificially inseminated, and later gave birth to a child. Defendant is the biological mother of the child. The parties separated in March 2009. While they initially agreed to a visitation schedule, they subsequently found that they could not agree.
As a result, the plaintiff filed a verified complaint under the Paternity Act, asserting that she fully participated in the care and rearing of the minor child. She requested relief from the trial court, which included an order dissolving the marriage, an order affirming that she is the parent of the child, and orders regarding custody, parenting time, and child support. Defendant filed a motion for summary disposition asserting that plaintiff lacked standing to petition for custody of the child. The trial court granted defendant’s motion. Plaintiff then appealed.
Stankevich v Milliron, unpublished opinion per curiam of the Court of Appeals, issued October 17, 2013 (Docket No. 310710)]. An application for leave was submitted to the Michigan Supreme Court. The MSC vacated and remanded 498 Mich 877 (2015).
Yesterday, the Court of Appeals remanded to the trial court with instructions: "Pursuant to the dictates of the United States Supreme Court in Obergefell v Hodges, ___ US ___; 135 S Ct 2584; 192 L Ed 2d 609 (2015), we remand this matter for proceedings consistent with this opinion." The opinion may be read here: Download STANKEVICH_v_MILLIRON
Colleagues advise that a recent Illinois case went the other way.
Noel Tucker, family lawyer in Oklahoma shared an Oklahoma case holding that despite the lack of a same-sex marriage and despite the lack of a written co-parenting agreement, a partner who had knowingly and willingly cooperated in the procreation of a child with her partner and had actively co-parented, had the right to a best interest of the child hearing when the relationship failed. Download RAMEY_v_SUTTON_(OK)
When I first began to research the issue of shared custody and parenting time issues with same-sex couples, I came upon a very sad case. SF v. MD, 751 A.2d 9, 132 Md. App. 99 (Md. App., 2000) Two professional women, one an epidemiologist and the other a psychiatrist, actively co-parented the child. When there was a break in the relationship, the mother who bore the child after artificial insemination performed by her partner, was shut out of the child's life. This was a terrible case, with terrible facts--and might well have gone the same way as Stankevich if brought today. Download SF_v._MD
