Sunday, February 18, 2007
Interesting Decision by the Utah Supreme Court
Fairly regularly, there are some really interesting and important cases up at the Utah Supreme Court. Jones v. Barlow is one of them. In the case, a lesbian couple decided to have a child together. They did everything they could to approximate the family relationship (civil union, etc.). But after a few years, the birth mother decided she didn't want to practice that lifestyle any more and removed her daughter from the situation. The non-birth mother wants visitation rights, but the birth mother doesn't want that to happen. This case is about whether the non-birth mother has standing to petition for visitation--i.e., whether the non-birth mother has a legal right to ask a court for visitation. The Utah Supreme Court held that the non-birth mother didn't have a legally-recognized relationship with the child and it declined to create such a right on its own. Chief Justice Durham dissented, arguing that the court should have created such a right on its own. Here's an article from the Salt Lake Tribune about the case. I think its a poor article. The reporter wasn't able to see through the parties' rhetoric to the actual substance of the opinion. Here's a link to the article. And if you're interested enough to read the actual opinion, here it is.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
For those who, like me, couldn't link to the opinion, here is the url: http://www.utcourts.gov/opinions/supopin/Jones5021607.pdf.
Ian:
This is a very interesting case. I agree w/ the holding that blood is thicker than a Vermont Civil Union. I'm shocked by Durham's dissent. It appears that she views civil unions as equal to marriage.
I did not know that civil unions and marriages were different. Could someone explain that to me?.
Thanks, Jayme. I fixed the link. The chief justice's dissent is interesting. She would, under the court's inherent powers to create common law, create a doctrine that gave permanent parental rights to non-biological parents in circumstances where the biological parent and the non-biological parent made a thorough effort to treat both parties as parents of the child (entering into a civil union is only one of the factors she would consider). This doctrine wouldn't just apply to same-sex partners (think step-parents and other similar relationships). The majority declined to create such a doctrine, opting to leave such policy-intensive decisions to the legislature.
Amber, civil unions and marriages are very similar, and they give you similar rights as regards your relationship to each other (inheritance rights, rights to be a beneficiary on another's insurance policy, tax benefits, etc.). This case, however, is more about the relationship between a biological parent and a non-biological parent. We give biological parents the right to control how their children are raised, including determining whom the children can or cannot see. The issue in this case is whether we will allow another, non-biological parent (like a step-parent, grandparent, ect.) to claim some rights to visitation even when the birth parent does not want to allow visitation. Does that make sense? Its a delicate issue that requires balancing some important rights (rights of the biological parent v. rights of a non-biological parent who has invested time, energy, and money into the raising of the child).
Interesting discussion. Ian, it's always nice to hear about things going on at the court, since you can't talk about them until they are published.
Amber, to answer your question further, Civil Unions are marriage-like relationships authorized by some countries and states. They attempt to convey some of the rights and privileges of marriage to homosexual couples, but are limited because they are not recognized by the U.S. Federal government or by most states.
Post a Comment