‘The lesbian biological mom does to her ex exactly what heterosexual mothers so often do to their ex-husbands…’

Columbus, OH–Over the past year I have written a column and several blog posts on the issue of the rights of lesbian “social mothers’–women who agreed to employ a sperm donor so that they could have children with their lesbian partners, who are the biological mothers. I do believe that children fare best when they have both a mom and a dad, and that fathers offer much to children that mothers don”t provide. However, this is not possible in lesbian couples.
When two lesbians agree to have a child together, and when the child has bonded with both his or her biological mother and his or her social mother, I believe that the relationship between the child and the social mother should be protected. I also believe that the biological mother has a responsibility to her children and to her former partner to hold up her end of the deal with the partner with whom she created the child, and that courts should hold her to her commitment. These cases are now becoming routine–when the relationship goes sour, the lesbian biological mom does to her ex exactly what heterosexual mothers so often do to their ex-husbands–drive her out of her child”s life. When heterosexual women do this our society makes excuses for them and assumes that the ex-husband must have done something bad to merit it. With these lesbian breakups we can see the truth much clearer–some women (straight or gay) are vindictive, and this vindictiveness drives them to purge their exes from their children”s lives. In this case, the lesbian couple legally committed themselves to having joint custody, and now the biological mother is trying to employ the Ohio ban on gay marriage in order to deprive her ex of a role in their child’s life. Woman Argues Ohio Anti-Gay Amendment Bars Ex From Sharing Custody 365Gay.com, 3/26/08 (Columbus, Ohio) An Ohio woman says the state’s ban on same-sex marriage is grounds for barring her ex-partner from sharing custody with her son.” Thursday the Court of Appeals will hear her case. Last June a judge in Columbus ruled that the amendment has no bearing on a signed agreement between Denise Fairchild and Therese Leach that they would share custody of the boy, now aged 11. The dispute over custody began in 2005 after the women ended their relationship. After their son was born in 1996, both women parented him. In order to ensure that Leach had a protected legal relationship with the child, the two women signed a joint custody agreement. Such agreements were approved by the Ohio Supreme Court in 2001. That same year an Ohio court approved the joint custody agreement stating they would share custody. After Leach and Fairchild broke up, Fairchild sought to terminate the custody agreement, citing the 2004 state amendment limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples. In addition to banning same-sex marriage the amendment, known as Issue 1, says the state “and its political subdivisions shall not create or recognize a legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals that intends to approximate the design, qualities, significance or effect of marriage.” Lawyers for Fairchild argued in Franklin County’s domestic relations court that the amendment extends to adoption. Magistrate Darrolyn Krippel ruled that the amendment to the state constitution could not apply in the case “Granting custody of a minor child to a nonparent is done every day,” Krippel said in a written opinion. The judgment noted that family courts regularly settle custody disputes between unmarried people and even people of the same sex. “The granting of custody to these nonparents is not against public policy,” Krippel’s ruling said. Read the full article here.