Utah's high court denies parental rights to former lesbian partner

by Allie Martin and Jody Brown
February 21, 2007

(OneNewsNow.com) - - Utah's highest court has decided that an unrelated woman doesn't have any parental rights over the child of her former lesbian partner. That's a good, common-sense ruling, says Liberty Counsel.

Cheryl Barlow and Keri Jones were living together in Utah when they went to Vermont and took part in a civil union. They were still living together when Barlow gave birth following artificial insemination in 2001. Their relationship ended two years later, and Barlow is now a Christian.

Jones sued for parental rights and visitation, but the Utah Supreme Court said Jones had no right under the law to seek visitation or parental rights. "[We] decline to adopt a 'de facto parent' doctrine," stated Justice Jill Parish in writing for the majority, "because it would be an improper usurpation of legislative authority and would contradict both common law principles and Utah statutory law."

Common law, Parrish explained, does not convey "perpetual" rights that survive termination of a "parent-like" relationship. In addition, the court declined to create such rights by adopting a doctrine supportive of what has been referred to as the "psychological parent."

Mat Staver is founder of Liberty Counsel, which is defending two separate cases -- one in California, the other in both Vermont and Virginia -- on behalf of biological mothers whose lesbian former partners are suing to obtain parental rights. Staver says the Utah high court made a common-sense ruling.

"Fortunately the Utah Supreme Court said no, that the parental rights reside first and foremost with the biological mother," says the Liberty Counsel attorney. "This is great news for parents and parental rights around the country [because] it helps strengthen the family."

The court ruling reverses a lower-court order that granted Jones visitation rights and required her to pay child support. On its website, Liberty Counsel says it is "heartbreaking" to even imagine that a court would grant an unrelated woman visitation with a biological mother's small child. Staver contends that a federal marriage amendment is needed to stop such cases.

The lone dissent in the Utah decision was registered by Chief Justice Christine M. Durham, who wrote that the facts of the case "mirror a typical divorce" in which separated parents are quarreling over child visitation and custody -- despite the fact that both of the "parents" are women. It is a situation that is becoming "more and more common," she acknowledged.

Durham argued that a non-biological parent -- Jones, in this case -- does have standing to petition for visitation rights when a "de facto parent-child relationship" has been established with the consent of the biological parent.