Blind Prophecy

One of the reasons I think it would be a good time to leave Utah is that I’m starting to get really near that age (30) that I’ve set as a kind of deadline for some major life decisions… like kids. I’ve dreamed and fantasized about adopting children since I came out of the closet at the age of 18. Back then, though, it seemed so far off and not particularly urgent. With only 15 months until the big three-oh begins, it’s starting to seem urgent that I start moving my life in a direction where that can happen. Which means a direction other than Utah.

There’s a bill working through the Utah legislature right now, HB148, which would go even further in limiting parental rights for GLBT people in Utah. State law already prohibits adoption by unmarried people and I’m sure no one is surprised about the dozen other laws defining family in Utah law. Well, over a year ago, two lesbians began fighting for custody of their daughter. The biological mother claimed (backed by rabid right-wing attorneys) claimed that her ex-partner had no legal claim to the child. The lower court judge disagreed, citing the doctrine of “in loco parentis,” where it can be established that a parental relationship has existed long enough to warrant visitation rights at the very least.

Well, HB148, sponsored by the second biggest homophobe on capitol hill, LaVar Christensen, would define “in loco parentis” differently. Under HB148, judges may not determine a parental relationship exists if it is contrary to the express desires of a biological parent. Further, “in loco parentis” could not be used to justify any legal rights such as adoption, visitation, parent-time, custody, or child support.

The case between the two lesbians is still under appeal to the Utah Supreme Court, but would be lost if this legislation passes.

Now, I know Christensen is just trying to be clear about how much he hates us fags and lezzies, but the effects of his bill would be much further reaching than I think he realizes. During the legislative “debate” there has been a lot of wild theories suggested about how little league coaches, teachers, friends and babysitters could try to take children away from their biological parents. Let’s test some less crazy theories…

1. Ann’s son Bob is the result of her first marriage to John. After divorcing John (who disappears entirely), Ann remarries Bill. Bill and Ann raise Bob together for 14 years, but Ann goes through a bad time then and turns to drugs and alcohol. Things go bad between Ann and Bill, a divorce is inevitable. Bill seeks custody, or at least some relationship with his step-son Bob, because he, Bob, and the judge all know that Ann is in no condition to care for a teenager. Ann, however, is feeling spiteful and hurt, and expressly declares that she wants no relationship between her biological son and his step-father.

2. Susan meets Charlie, a young widower with twin daughters. Charlie, still grieving for his first wife and the product of a troubled and unpleasant family, never feels like he can marry Susan. Months stretch into years, but there’s never a legal relationship between Susan and the twin children she’s raising like her own. In fact, she has a young son of her own with Charlie, and the kids all think of themselves as siblings. One day, Charlie is killed in a work accident. The funeral is the first time either the children or Susan have even seen Charlie’s parents in almost four years, but suddenly, the grandparents want custody of the twins. Charlie never left any will or documentation stating his wishes that the twins continue to be raised by Susan, and his parents hire a convincing attorney to argue that by not marrying Susan, Charlie clearly didn’t want her to be the mother of the twins (they even have a letter – taken out of context, I’m sure – in which Charlie says that Susan could never replace the mother the twins lost as toddlers).

These are the types of situations “in loco parentis” is designed to address. The fact that is also, once, got used in a case between two *gasp* lesbians isn’t a very good reason to strip away judicial discretion in nasty political posturing.

Filed under: livejournal by Jere Keys