Will This Court Case Recognize Non-Biological LGBTQ+ Parents?

By DONALD PADGETT

Click here for updates on this story

    MICHIGAN (Advocate Channel) — A case before the Michigan Supreme Court involving a lesbian relationship that turned sour could set a precedent for child custody cases involving LGBTQ+ families elsewhere in the country.

In the case, Carrie Pueblo v. Rachel Haas, the state’s highest court will determine how custody and visitation rights have been impacted for non-biological LGBTQ+ parents in the state following the historic Obergefell v. Hodges decision legalizing marriage equality at a federal level. The ACLU of Michigan, GLAD, and the Lambda Legal Defense & Education Fund are among the groups filing amicus briefs in the case.

Oral arguments in the case were heard last Tuesday.

The legal argument centers around the equitable parent doctrine, which grants non-biological parents the ability to petition the courts for custody and visitation rights of the children they had parented in a past relationship. Carrie Pueblo filed suit under the doctrine after Rachel Haas cut off all contact in 2017 with a child, Jack Paul Haas-Pueblo, born to Haas in 2008 and raised by the couple. The case was dismissed as the court determined she had no standing because she was not a biological parent to Jack and marriage equality was not recognized in the state at the time. A court of appeals also declined to give standing to Pueblo. She is now asking the Michigan Supreme Court to reconsider the lower court decisions following the Obergefell v. Hodges which legalized marriage equality throughout the country.

“When parents separate, children in families created by same-sex couples, just like children in families created by different-sex couples, need legal protections that recognize the parents’ and children’s fundamental rights in their relationship,” GLAD, which filed a brief in the case, said on its website. “Custody and parenting time decisions for the children of same-sex couples should be made based on the best interests of the child, just as they are for the children of different-sex couples.”

According to documents filed with the court, Haas and Pueblo entered into a long-term romantic relationship around 2007. Pueblo notes the two went through a “Commitment Ceremony” in June of 2007, which involved exchanging rings.

“The parties wore wedding bands, lived together, paid bills together, and – most importantly – chose together to become pregnant via in vitro fertilization,” Pueblo claims in her brief to the court.

Haas flatly contradicts Pueblo’s claims in her brief: “Contrary to the Appellant’s assertion, these parties were never married, nor “equitably married” – or de facto married — whatever the Appellant means by those terms.”

Haas became pregnant via in vitro fertilization and gave birth in November of the following year to Jack. The pair raised Jack together, but their relationship fell apart and the pair broke up. Pueblo says the breakup occurred in 2014, Haas contends it was in 2012. Both agree Haas abruptly cut off all contact between Pueblo and Jack in 2017. Pueblo says she filed suit against Haas as a last resort.

In her brief, Pueblo claims she acted as Jack’s father, an assertion denied by Haas. Haas also denies Pueblo’s claims that the sperm donor was chosen to have physical features similar to Pueblo’s. And while she does not deny Pueblo paid for some medical expenses for the pregnancy as well as living expenses for Haas and Jack following the son’s stroke in 2016 at the age of seven, Haas claims they are irrelevant to the case.

“The information concerning the parties’ actions in the period leading up to the birth of the minor child, while perhaps interesting, is not factually relevant to the issues before this Court,” Haas asserts.

Instead, she notes Pueblo’s name does not appear on the birth certificate, she made no attempt to adopt Jack prior to the breakup, and that she should not be granted retroactive standing under the equitable parent doctrine.

Pueblo also notes the two went through a “Commitment Ceremony” in June of 2007, which involved exchanging rings, and claims the pair were in a but Haas disputes the significance of the event.

“Contrary to the Appellant’s assertion, these parties were never married, nor “equitably married” – or de facto married — whatever the Appellant means by those terms.”

According to the ACLU of Michigan, who filed a brief in the case, “parents who were unconstitutionally denied the right to marry should be able to invoke a judicial doctrine known as “equitable parenthood” to seek custody and parenting time, and that when a same-sex couple uses assisted reproduction, legal parentage can be established for the non-birth parent” under the state’s laws.

While the ruling will only impact Michigan law, it could set a precedent for how similar cases are decided in other states.

Please note: This content carries a strict local market embargo. If you share the same market as the contributor of this article, you may not use it on any platform.