Subscribe to Breaking News
Loading ...Lawers argue Ohio Constitution bans gay co-parenting
01.22.2009 3:30pm EST
(Cleveland, Ohio) Despite a ruling by the Ohio Supreme Court that the state’s constitutional ban on same-sex marriage does not automatically bar same-sex partners from co-parenting rights, a second case has made its way to an appeals court.
Rita Goodman and her then-partner Siobhan LaPiana planned to have a family. LaPiana gave birth to two children, now aged 11 and 8.Both women equally parented the boys, who love and rely on both of them as their mothers ,according to court documents filed by Lambda Legal which represents Goodman.
Before the birth of the first child, Goodman and LaPiana drafted and signed a parenting agreement detailing their intent to share all responsibilities of parenthood.
After the couple ended their 10-relationship, LaPiana began restricting Goodman’s time with the boys.
In February 2007, Goodman filed a lawsuit, and in August 2008, the trial court ordered visitation for Goodman.
LaPiana appealed, arguing among other things that Ohio’s antigay constitutional amendment prevents courts from entering orders permitting former lesbian partners to share custody, and that the court’s order unconstitutionally infringed on her right to autonomy as a parent.
“The Ohio Supreme Court already has said that Ohio’s antigay constitutional amendment does not prevent a same-sex couple from sharing custody of the children they are rearing together,” said Lambda Attorney Camilla Taylor in a statement.
” We shouldn’t have to address this hurtful and discriminatory argument any longer. The trial court below in this case did the right thing by focusing on the needs of the children, and awarding shared custody to these women based on more than a century of Ohio case law allowing such orders.”
Goodman said that the issue is about the well-being of the children.
“This has always been about my sons and making sure they can rely on both of their parents. I made a promise to take care of them always — and I’m just trying to make good on that promise,” said Goodman.
Last December in a similar case argued by Lambda, the Ohio Supreme Court rejected a similar effort by a woman in a custody dispute with her former partner to use Ohio’s antigay constitutional amendment to sever the parental relationship between her child and her former partner.
The anti-gay marriage amendment has nothing to do with parenting. Look at straight people; they have kids all the time without being married. So since the amendment covers marriage, civil unions etc. put says nothing about parenting.
What a crazy anti-gay argument — that the Constitution forces children to be withheld from a mother. Those poor kids.
(PS: You’ve got a typo in the title there.)
These cases are examples of idiotic gays and lesbians who are angry with their former partners and are more willing to impact the rights of our entire community than to share something of value (their children) with their ex’es.
Shame on these people!!!
We need no more proof that Gay divorce and custody battles will be no different from the Straight ones.
Please please please fix the typo in the title! Argh!
I am appalled that there are some GLBT people out there that will use anti-gay legislation against each other just out of spite. If we want our relationships recognized during the good times, we also need to have our relationships recognized during the bad times. We cannot have it both ways; either we want equal rights or we do not. These are the same trivial and hurtful ploys that straight people use against each other, are we not better than that?
I agree with CLT. It is appalling.
What a worthless human being! PC or Not PC … she’s a complete waste of space. Wow … who needs Falwell and Warren?
This would never happen to heterosexual couples. If someone changed their mind then, they would be stuck.
http://stuffqueerpeopleneedtoknow.wordpress.com/
Standard custody cases can be bad enough. This…here’s this woman who has such a hate for her ex that she’s ready to use the excuse of “those rights don’t exist under the law.” That’s an emotionally unstable game-player, and if that’s indicative of her current state, Siobhan LaPiana has no business being a primary custodial parent, probably not even a custodial parent. She’s more concerned with games and manipulation and “gotcha” gestures–and if she’s doin’ those things, she’s not focused on the well-being of those kids. She’s also not helping those kids, by modeling such unhealthy and immature behavior (there’s gotta be some Axis II stuff lurking in her).