Let's say that two women who are lovers decide to have a baby together. In order to do this, a doctor takes the eggs of one woman, fertilizes them with sperm from a man and then implants those eggs into the womb of the other woman.
Now fast forward a few years. The relationship between the two moms doesn't work out and now the courts must decide who gets the children.
Well, who's the so-called "biological" mother? The one who's eggs were fertilized or the one who actually gave birth to the child? Confused? I know I would be.
The California Supreme Court had to issue a ruling on a case like this. They sided with the "birth mother" as opposed to the "biological mother."
From The Associated Press:
Upholding a lower court ruling, the 1st District Court of Appeal decided only the woman's partner -- who gave birth to the twins after artificial insemination with eggs provided by her lover -- has full parental rights.
The court said though the genetic mother was a loving, at-home parent, "functioning as a parent does not bestow legal status as a parent."
"An adoption decree would provide objective, formalized proof of the parties' parentage intentions," the court said.
The case is expected to be appealed to the California Supreme Court, but underscores that laws dealing with parental rights for gay or lesbian couples are largely unmapped territory.
The woman suing for parental rights -- identified in court papers as K.M. -- never sought to adopt the now-8-year-old twins, who live with their birth mother in Massachusetts. Her attorney, Jill Hersh, said her client "didn't adopt because she was the biological mother. She didn't think she had to.
All I can do is shake my head. I could care less about the "parents" in this case, I can't imagine what this is doing to the children.
People are so selfish. They act like kids are something you obtain in life, like a house or a car. Some people think they're a status symbol. They don't consider whether or not their lifestyle is right for raising a child in, they just want one.