The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled in favor of an unmarried lesbian seeking the right to seek full custody of the children she raised from birth to ages four and eight with her former partner, the children’s biological mother.
The decision came in on Tuesday, October 4, after the justices arguments from a team from GLBTQ Legal Advocates & Defenders (GLAD). Mary Bonauto, GLAD’s civil rights director, lead the team.
“It is especially a victory for the children in those families who should not be deprived of their parents because those parents are not married or used assisted reproduction,” Bonauto told the Boston Globe, in an October 4 report.
According to the Globe, the couple—Karen Partanen and Julie Gallagher, the biological mother—split up in 2013. At that time, Partanen wanted to be declared a full legal parent. However:
A family court judge dismissed Partanen’s request, finding that she didn’t meet the requirements under state law because she and Gallagher were not married when the children were born, and Partanen is not a biological parent.
In overturning that ruling, the SJC found that a gay person may establish themselves as a child’s presumptive parent under state law, even without a biological relationship with the child.
“The plain language of the provisions, then, may be construed to apply to children born to same-sex couples, even though at least one member of the couple may well lack biological ties to the children,” Justice Barbara Lenk wrote for the court in the unanimous decision. …
In an interview in April, Gallagher acknowledged that Partanen has been a good parent and said she would never attempt to remove the children from her life. The children spend half their time with Partanen under a shared custody order.
Gallagher said then that she was challenging Partanen’s bid to be declared a full legal parent, which would allow her to share in virtually every decision made about the children.
“I am a biological mother. I wanted to have children. They’re my world, and it’s my right to make legal decisions for them,” Gallagher said.
Partenen’s attorney argued that “Partanen was trying to obtain legal rights she would be entitled to only if she had married Gallagher, adopted the children or filed a voluntary acknowledgement of paternity.”
For a Q&A-style breakdown of the significance and specifics, visit GLAD’s webpage devoted to Partanen v. Gallagher.
