Family Law Prof Blog

NY Senate Votes Down Gay Marriage Bill, 38-24

See here for the New York times article describing the vote.

MR

Developments in Polish Family Law

In November 2008, in Poland, the Family and Guardianship Code of 25^th February 1964 (hereinafter ‘Family Code’) was changed.  An amendment came into force on 13^th June 2009, mainly concerning relations between children and parents and introducing significant changes in the establishment of motherhood and fatherhood, parental authority, contacts with children, alimony and guardianship of minors.

Previously, the Family Code did not have any provisions regarding the establishment of motherhood.  However, the development of new techniques of artificial insemination questioned and weakened the dictum mater simper certa est, making some changes necessary.  According to the present wording of Family Code, the mother of the child is the woman who gave birth to the child.

Parental authority has been changed in this way, taking into consideration the partnership between children and parents.  On the one hand, in cases when a child is able to act alone, the child should listen to the opinions and recommendations of the parents.  On the other hand, parents should listen to the child before making any decisions regarding the child’s assets or the child personally.

The right to contact belongs to each parent regardless of parental authority.  Parents are able to make an agreement establishing the rules regulating each parent’s manner of contact with their common children.

A child may claim subsidies from the parents as long as the child cannot support himself.  However, the parent of a child coming of age may defeat the claim by showing that the subsidies create excessive detriment and the child does not attempt to gain the qualifications that would enable him to support himself.        

Posted by Guest Blogger Anna Stępień-Sporek, Associate Professsor, University of Gdańsk School of Law

Paying to Decrease Teen Pregnancy

There is no question that financial gain can incentivize behavior.  At 5, some kids may get a small allowance upon properly brushing their teeth.  At 12, they may get a token amount upon taking out the garbage.  In North Carolina, teenagers may now qualify for a small government stipend ($1 per day) to avoid pregnancy and enroll in school.  This article describes the details surrounding the program sending many girls to the bank, which aims to offset public costs of teenage pregnancies.  From opposingviews.com:

Teen pregnancies cost $9.1 billion annually, according to the National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy, or around $500,000 for each teen pregnancy for health care and welfare. College Bound Sisters [this program paying off teenagers] costs just $75,000 a year to operate.

It will certainly be interesting to see the outcome, although it is not the first such program.  Read more about this program here.

                                                         

MR

 

Merrily We Roll Along

While not strictly related to family law (although arguably so by virtue of illustrating life without familial and friend support), opening night was very enjoyable at the Georgetown Gilbert & Sullivan Society’s production of Stephen Sondheim’s Merrily We Roll Along at Georgetown Law Center—playing through Saturday night.  Tickets are $12; see here for details.

 MR

Suicide Tourism Under Threat in Switzerland

TimesOnline reports that two draft Bills will be offered for public debate in Switzerland to tighten regulation of euthanasia clinics in Switzerland.  Dignitas and Exit, two of the most prominent Swiss euthanasia clinics spurring Europeans to engage in suicide tourism, will have to adhere to the new regulations or shut down operations.  Quite a bit of European media coverage has focused on these clinics, highlighting the grotesque apsects of the business of euthanasia, including a 70-hour suicide gone awry.

MR

Second Parent Adoption, DOMA, and Genetic Child

This case presents important questions about the ways in which a child’s “parents” are defined and legally constituted, and how the parent/child relationship can be protected in a transient, cross-border society.  Answers implicate assisted reproductive technologies (ARTs) and an out-dated statutory scheme which fails to anticipate the relations created by those technologies, New York’s evolving jurisprudence of same sex relationships, equal protection, full faith and credit, and the effects of the federal Defense of Marriage Act (“DOMA”) (Pub L No 104-199, 110 US Stat 2419 [1996], codified at 1 USC § 7 [2000] and 28 USCS § 1738C [2000]).  This court concludes that although petitioner already has a legally protected parental relationship with Sebastian and, even in the absence of that legal relationship, could utilize several less intrusive, expensive and time-consuming methods of establishing one, the only remedy available here that will accord the parties full and unassailable protection is a second-parent adoption pursuant to New York Domestic Relations Law (“DRL”) § 111 et seq.

So begins In re Sebastian, an opinion by New York Surrogate Kristin Booth Glen, in a case that sounds as if it might be a Family Law exam:

Ingrid A. is a Dutch citizen who works at the United Nations.  Mona A. is of Somali/Yemeni heritage, had an international upbringing and practices international law at a New York firm.  Ingrid and Mona have been in a committed relationship for more than eleven years, and on December 24, 2004 they were legally married in the Netherlands. Desirous of establishing a family, and one which would reflect their ethnic and racial diversity, Mona donated her ova which were fertilized  in vitro2 by an anonymous sperm donor chosen for his similarities to Ingrid’s Dutch Italian ethnicity.   The fertilized ovum was successfully implanted in Ingrid’s uterus, and on January 27, 2008 she gave birth to Sebastian, with Mona at her side.   A birth certificate was issued by New York City’s Department of Health and Mental Hygiene naming Ingrid alone as Sebastian’s parent.  Since then Ingrid and Mona continue to live together and co-parent Sebastian, who they consider to be the child of each of them.  Notwithstanding their marriage and Mona’s unquestioned genetic relationship to Sebastian, Mona here seeks to adopt the child.

Glen grants the second-parent adoption as the only way in which the parental rights would be protected across state and national borders, but only after exploring the other possible avenues and concluding that they do not provide sufficient certainty:

Sebastian’s genetic mother has other potential legal avenues:  first, to be listed on Sebastian’s birth certificate; second, with her partner, Ingrid, to execute a statutorily prescribed acknowledgment of paternity [filiation]; and third, to obtain a judicial order of filiation. Only the last of these is presumptively subject to Full Faith and Credit.  This court, however,  lacks jurisdiction to confer legal parentage in any way other than by granting the adoption requested by the parties.  And, although it is also true that an adoption should be unnecessary because Sebastian was born to parents whose marriage is legally recognized in this state, the best interests of this child require a judgment that will ensure recognition of both Ingrid and Mona as his legal parents throughout the entire United States.

 
This is an erudite opinion by Surrogate Glen, former family law professor (and former dean at CUNY School of Law), that is worth reading for professors, practitioners, and students alike. The opinion is available as a pdf here.

RR

Conference: CHANGING FAMILIES

Conference at:

"Our Changing Families"

Dedicated To The Influential Work of

                                        former [NY Ct of Appeals]

                                      Chief Judge Judith S. Kaye

Date: Friday, April 17, 2009
Time:  8:30 a.m. - 3 p.m.
Location: Albany Law School, 1928 Building, Room 200
Registration:  The symposium is free and open to the public. Registration is, however, preferred. To register contact Lauren Hunt 518-445-3320 or lhunt@albanylaw.edu. 
Continuing Legal Education: This symposium has been certified as a source of 5 credit hours for both transitional and non-transitional areas of professional practice for attorneys in the State of New York. Cost: $75. CLE registration is required.

More info here.

RR