Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Custody for Same-Sex Couples
Almost 15 years ago, the California Court of Appeal became the first appellate court in the country to rule on a custody dispute between a lesbian couple. Although the petitioner in that case had jointly participated with her partner in the decision to bring a child into the world and had assumed all of the duties and responsibilities of a parent after the child's birth, the court held that she did not have standing even to seek visitation with her children — that she was a legal stranger to them. Curiale v. Reagan, 222 Cal.App.3d 1597, 1599 (Cal. Ct. App. 1990) (holding that a lesbian partner had no right to seek custody or visitation of a child born to her former partner, even though she had participated equally in parenting the child since birth); see also Nancy S. v. Michele G., 228 Cal.App.3d 831 (Cal. Ct. App. 1991) (same); West v. Superior Court, 59 Cal.App.4th 302 (Cal. Ct. App. 1997) (same). As a result of these decisions, during the past 15 years, thousands of children in California have been completely and permanently cut off, both emotionally and financially, from one of their two parents.
Evolving Law
Since Curiale was decided, however, California law has evolved in ways that have undermined the reasoning in these old decisions. In particular, California courts have held that the parentage of children born through assisted reproduction is not based on biology alone. In Johnson v. Calvert, 5 Cal. 4th 84 (Cal. 1993), for example, the California Supreme Court resolved the parentage of a child born to a married couple through the use of a gestational surrogate by examining the parties' pre-birth intentions. Because the husband and wife intended to be parents, the court held that they were the child's legal parents, even though the surrogate and the wife had an equal biological claim to be the child's legal mother. In In re Marriage of Buzzanca, 61 Cal.App.4th 1410 (Cal. Ct. App. 1998), the Court of Appeal applied this intent-based standard to determine the parentage of a child born to a married couple who were both infertile and who used donated ovum, donated sperm, and a gestational surrogate to have a child. The court held that the husband and wife were legal parents, based on their joint intentions to be so, even though neither had any biological relationship to the child. While these cases involved children born to heterosexual parents, the reasoning would seem to apply equally to children born to same-sex parents: If heterosexual couples who use assisted reproduction to have children are legal parents, based on their joint intentions, why should same-sex couples be subject to a different rule?
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
Removing Restrictive Covenants In New York
In Rockwell v. Despart, the New York Supreme Court, Third Department, recently revisited a recurring question: When may a landowner seek judicial removal of a covenant restricting use of her land?