A child custody battle, between a former couple in a lesbian union, has resulted in custody being awarded to the one that gave birth to the child, as reported by The New American, the Associated Press and Cincinnati.com.
The Ohio Supreme Court has awarded full custody of a now five-year old girl to K.M., the biological mother.
K.M. was involved in a relationship with her lesbian partner, M. H., until 2007.
Both partners shared in the parenting and financial responsibility of the girl - until the high court's four to three margin ruling.
The Associated Press report states: (M.H.) argued that the jointly planned pregnancy plus documents citing (M.H.) as (the child's) 'co-parent' - including a ceremonial birth certificate and will - created a contractual agreement between the women. A magistrate who initially reviewed the evidence ruled the pair had a binding agreement."
Justice Robert Culp, in writing for the majority said, "The court noted that all the documents created by (K.M.) which purported to give (M.H.) some custodial responsibilities not only were revocable, but were, in fact, revoked by (K.M.). Testimony supported (K.M.'s) statement that she did not intend to relinquish sole custody of the child to (M.H.).
Justice Paul Pfeifer, in a dissenting opinion, wrote, "Can an agreement that another person is a co-parent in every way possibly not include a right to custody? It cannot. The trial court seems to agree, and thus turns its emphasis on the fact that the documents were revocable. But the question before the court was whether Mullen agreed to share custody of her child with (M.H.), not whether she eventually came to regret that decision."
Cincinnati.com reported that the two had "lived together as a couple and decided to have a child, agreeing the younger (K.M.) would give birth. They took out a second mortgage on the house they built together to pay for the $12,000 in-vitro procedure."
Douglas Doherty, the attorney for K.M., contended that M.H. is not considered as a parent to the child under Ohio law and, that when the union ended, so did M.H.'s claims to any parental rights.
The two women still maintain separate lesbian lifestyles.
Dougherty concluded, "My client is a lesbian and proud of it, and she thinks lesbians should have all the rights that straight people have, and so do I. The problem here wasn't that it was a lesbian or gay relationship, it was that they didn't love each other anymore, and very sadly didn't respect each other anymore, and my client felt a clean break was in the best interest of the child."
Another section of Pfeifer's dissenting opinion read, "A maternal relationship existed between (M.H.) and (the child). (K.M.) taught her daughter to call another woman 'Momma' and to love her as a mother. She now wishes she hadn't, and for the majority, that's enough. It shouldn't be."
Whether or not you were joined in heterosexual, or homosexual, union, if you are concerned about the custody of your child, contact a family law attorney for help in your state.