Can Sally have too many mommies?

Traditionally, the family was defined as a mommy, a daddy, and 2.5 kids. In our modern times, the traditional notions of how to define a family continues to be challenged. As divorces have become commonplace, the traditional notion of a family unit as having a mommy and daddy has flown out the window to a more common situation of a mommy in one house and a daddy in another house, with stepparents in each place.  Increasingly, the spotlight is shining on same-sex parenting units as a family. 

In many states, including Texas, the law remains archaic in addressing the needs of non-traditional family units.  Obtaining the right to seek relief from a court (called standing to sue) remains difficult for a non-biological or non-adoptive "parent" who has maintained a significant relationship with a child (whether same-sex or hetrosexual in nature).  And, the Troxel case out of the United States Supreme Court vitiates the right of most people to invade the biological or adoptive parent's decision-making (as to what people should have a relationship with a child) unless there is some question of parental fitness.  This is true even when the non-biological or non-adoptive "parent" overcomes the initial hurdle of standing.

The Boston Globe this week illuminates the new appearance of a family in its article Johnny Has Two Mommies -- And Four Dads.  The article discusses a summer movie called "The Kids Are All Right" where a man learns that he is the father of two teenagers by sperm donation with two lesbian mothers. (I never heard about this movie.  Did you?)

The article points out:

"In the age of assisted reproductive technology, the increasing acceptance of same-sex partnerships, and a steady growth in 'blended' families, more parents and more children are finding that traditional notions of the nuclear family don’t accurately reflect their lives and relationships.

"Still, even in a time of changing attitudes about who can be a parent, the legal and social definition of a family still has certain rules — a family can be run by a single mom or a single dad and, increasingly, by two moms or two dads, but it can’t have three parents, or four. For a long, long time — going back to when the English common law first started codifying such things — the law has set the maximum number of parents a child can have as two. Only two people, in other words, can enjoy the unique set of rights to determine a child’s life — and the unique set of responsibilities for the child’s welfare — that legal parenthood entails. That matches how most people think about parenthood: Two people, after all, are how many it usually takes to make a baby in the first place.

"Now a few family-law scholars have begun to argue that there is nothing special about the number two — if three or four or five adults have a parental relationship with a child, the law should recognize them all as parents. Going beyond two, these scholars argue, would better reflect the dynamics of the modern family, and also protect the children in such families. It would ensure that, even in the event of a split or major disagreement between the adults in question, the children would not be deprived of the affection, care, and financial resources of any of the people they have grown up regarding as their mothers and fathers.

" 'The law needs to adapt to the reality of children’s lives, and if children are being raised by three parents, the law should not arbitrarily select two of them and say these are the legal parents, this other person is a stranger,' says Nancy Polikoff, a family-law professor at American University’s Washington College of Law.

In a few recent cases, courts seem to have agreed with the calls for multiple parents. But critics argue that tinkering with the definition of parenthood in this way threatens to dilute the sense of obligation that being a parent has always carried, and that increasing the number of legal parents only raises the likelihood that family disputes will arise and get messy and find their way into court. Not to mention that having judges routinely declare that Heather has two mommies and three daddies would represent a radical cultural shift, and one that, like gay marriage, many will find threatening.

Ultimately, the legal definition of parenthood is part of a broader philosophical question: What is a family? And what is it for? While some scholars have focused on expanding the number of parents, others argue that the law needs to do more to recognize the social context in which families exist, and the extent to which child care is actually performed by people who aren’t part of the nuclear family at all.

And as supporters of revising the definition of parenthood point out, there’s nothing tidy or biologically preordained about today’s prevailing notion of parentage, one that often has to shoehorn families jumbled and reassembled by divorce, adoption, and reproductive technology into one standard model, in ways that can prove disruptive to the families in question.

" 'The law determines what makes someone a legal parent, not marriage, not biology. Those things don’t determine who is a parent, the law does,' says Polikoff.

In California, a three-party adoption has been recognized.  When asked why that was important, the parents replied that there is a perceived difference between being a "parent" under the law versus a friend or "uncle". Third-parent adoptions remain extremely rare, and only a handful have been done, mostly in Massachusetts and California. But some legal scholars see in them the seeds of a larger shift in how the law defines parenthood. These advocates point to a few recent court decisions that suggest a willingness to recognize more than two parents.

It would not be unheard of for the law to redefine parenthood.  For example, under English common law, children born outside of marriage had no parents at all under the law.  But, during the 20th century, the law erased the difference between legitimate versus illegitimate children in recognizing parenthood.  And, court decisions in the 1960's and 1970's, the Supreme Court struck down laws penalizing children born to unmarried women.

I have always maintained that a child cannot have too many people love him or her. That being said, I think it may be polyanna to think that multiple parenting families can work in reality.  As a Divorce Lawyer in Dallas, Texas who deals with parenting time agreements in Texas and court orders for possession schedules, it sounds like a nightmare to draft a co-parenting agreement with 2 moms and 1 dad, or 2 dads, 2 stepmoms, and a grandparent. all considered as parents!  Can you imagine the back and forth a child will suffer through in such a situation?

Basic Elements of a Parenting Plan

Basic Elements of a Parenting Plan:

Here’s a list of issues that must be addressed to form the basis of a parenting plan:

 

  • Which house is identified as “home base” for the children?
  • When will the children be with each parent during the school year?
  • When will the children be with each parent during holiday breaks?
  • How will the summer break period be handled?
  • What arrangements will be made for exchanging the children at the beginning of each parent’s time?
  • Who will decide which extracurricular activities the children will participate in? How will these activities be paid for? What happens if an activity falls during the other parent’s time?
  • How will the children’s religious upbringing be handled?
  • Who will make decisions for the medical and mental health needs of the children? How will these needs be paid for?
  • Who will have the right to represent the children in legal action and make other legal decisions for the children?
  • How will the children’s access to the internet be handled?
  • Who will carry the children on health insurance? Who will pay for the coverage? How will the uninsured medical expenses be handled?
  • Who will make decisions regarding the children’s education? How will private schooling be handled? What happens if the children need additional educational assistance such as tutoring? How will those expenses be handled?
  • What plans are being made for the children’s future college education?
  • Will the children talk on the telephone to the parent not in possession of them?
  • Will the children be allowed to travel outside the country with each parent? How will the passports be handled?

Unless the courts have ordered something different, both parents have the right to:

 

  • Receive information concerning the health, education and welfare of the kids;
  • Talk with the other parent before making a decision concerning the health, education and welfare of the kids;
  • Access their children’s medical, dental, psychological and educational records;
  • Consult with the kids’ doctors;
  • Consult with the school concerning the kids’ welfare and educational status;
  • Attend school activities;
  • Be listed as an emergency contact on the kids’ records;
  • Consent to medical treatment during an emergency involving an immediate danger to the health and safety of the kids;
  • Be offered the chance to take care of the kids during the other parent’s time if the other parent has something that keeps them from the kids;

There are some extra things that parents going through a split should keep in mind:

 

  • Alcohol consumption – limit the amount of alcohol you consume during your time with your kids, especially if alcohol has been a problem before. Never drive with your children if you’ve been drinking.
  • New romantic partners – take care to introduce your new boyfriend or girlfriend to your kids slowly, so they don’t feel as though their other parent is being  replaced.
  • Travel – when planning trips for business or pleasure, with or without your kids, keep your kids’ schedules and your parenting plan in mind.

In A Dallas Texas Child Custody Suit, Making the Toughest Decision

The closing chapter was written on a long Dallas Texas child custody battle by Kristine Vowels, a non-biological lesbian mother of her former partner's daughter, on October 8, 2010.  After 3 1/2 years of battling just to have the right to sue for access to the child -- called standing -- Kristie decided to end her fight. 

In her words contained in the Vowels' Notice of Nonsuit filed in the M.K.S. suit in the Dallas County District Family Court, Kristie said:

"After three and a half years of contested litigation, in the interest of the child she will always consider to be her daughter regardless of the legal definition, KRISTINE VOWELS has decided she can no longer prosecute this suit against TRACY SCOURFIELD. Throughout this process, KRISTINE VOWELS’ love for her daughter endures. This decision neither changes nor lessens the bond she feels for her daughter or her desire to someday have a relationship with her.

"This is a decision borne purely from KRISTINE VOWELS love for her daughter. Although suffering immeasurable pain at the thought that she may never see her little girl again, KRISTINE VOWELS wants her daughter to know this story, to know that she fought for her, and to know that in the end, when one has to decide if it is more important to be right or to be happy, KRISTINE VOWELS chose her daughter’s happiness and quality of life over her own happiness - a true gesture of the selfless love that a parent has for their child.

"Faith, hope, and love for the little girl she has known as her daughter since before she was born compelled KRISTINE VOWELS to file this lawsuit on May 23, 2007. This love sustained KRISTINE VOWELS through three-and-a-half years of contested litigation and appeals, on a roller coaster of defeat and then victory in the Fifth Court of Appeals, through the Texas Supreme Court, and then back to this Court again, with the acknowledged right of standing to pursue her suit under the Texas Family Code. It was her hope that allowed KRISTINE VOWELS to withstand the barage of claims that she was not nor would she ever be a parent to her little girl because the laws of our State would never recognize her legal right to fight for a chance to have a relationship with her daughter. It was her faith that allowed the dream of someday holding her daughter in her arms, hearing her laugh, and seeing her smile, to survive in KRISTINE VOWELS despite the fact that she was not allowed to see or even speak to her little girl since the day she was ripped away forever on April 25, 2007.

"The same faith, hope and love that began and sustained this case and that leads KRISTINE VOWELS, after much soul searching and prayer, to make the ultimate sacrifice and end this lawsuit. Today, on October 8, 2010, out of love for her daughter and with hope and faith in the woman she will grow to become, KRISTINE VOWELS asks this Court to grant her request to nonsuit this cause, and allow the little girl affected to wake up tomorrow in a home no longer shadowed by the unrest and uncertainty of pending litigation."

This case has set a very important precedent in LGBT gay parenting child custody cases, especially because it was decided by the court of appeals sitting in Dallas Texas, widely received in Texas as the most conservative of the elected courts.  For future litigation in Dallas and around the area, Vowels' case will make the journey a little easier.  But, sometimes the battle overwhelms the war.  Sometimes, even in litigation, a person must ask, "would I rather be right or be happy?"  or "would I rather by right or my child be happy?"  It is based on this very question that Kristine Vowels made this decision to end her battle. 

The Dallas Voice ran a series of 4 articles over the years, detailing Vowels efforts to gain access to her daughter:

October 15, 2010 Vowels Drops 3 1/2-year Custody Fight  or read the pdf version

May 8, 2008 Lesbian Moms in Custody Battle

December 9, 2009 Appeals Court Sends Lesbian Custody Case To Trial

August 5, 2010 Vowels Custody Case Returned to Trial Court for Hearing

Click this link For more information on same-sex custody litigation in Texas

What Is A Parenting Plan in Texas?

What Is a Parenting Plan in Texas?

A Texas parenting plan involves either an agreement or court order between parents that allocates the time the children will spend with each parent, how decisions will be made and how parenting responsibilities will be shared. This type of agreement allows parents to avoid future conflicts as a result of a lack of guidelines for handing situations. Some parents are able to agree as to the distribution of the various considerations among the parents, but others may disagree as to how to handle the issues regarding the children. When parents disagree as to the best interest of the children, the Texas divorce courts will make the final decision. 

The basic elements of a parenting plan include:

 

  • A schedule for when the children will spend time with each parent on a regular basis;
  • How holidays will be shared by the parents;
  • How to handle changes and adjustments that arise from time to time;
  • Who will make day-to-day decisions regarding the children;
  • How to share making important decisions regarding the children;
  • Arrange for the exchange of the children for each parent’s time;
  • Decide how to provide for the daily support of the child with each parent;
  • Arrange for the extra financial expenses of the children, such as medical expenses, and extracurricular activities.

It can also be helpful to determine a method of resolving future conflicts or disagreements that may arise. Some parents have the court appoint a parenting coordinator to assist in dispute resolution. Others may agree to attend mediation or counseling to resolve future disputes.

Does Fiduciary Duty Between Spouses Mean Suit for Mismanagement?

In a Texas family law case, the question arises as to whether there is a fiduciary relationship between the husband and wife that raises the bar for treatment of decisions made and how to account for a breach of this duty upon divorce.

From the American Bar Association Journal:  A Maryland appeals court has handed a victory to a partner and former managing principal of Beveridge & Diamond embroiled in a battle with his ex-wife over alleged financial malfeasance during their marriage.

The ruling (PDF) affirms the dismissal of Nancy Lasater’s tort suit against her former husband, Beveridge & Diamond partner John Guttmann Jr. Lasater had claimed that Guttman ran up large debts during their marriage, spending money on ill-advised real estate projects, exotic merchandise, personal adventures and a huge collection of compact discs. Her suit, filed after 25 years of marriage, had claimed conversion, intentional infliction of emotional distress, breach of fiduciary duty and fraud, according to the ruling by the Maryland Court of Special Appeals.

“We decline to open the door to tort suits arising from disagreements over allocation of marital resources when these grievances properly can be remedied in the divorce setting,” the appeals court said an opinion issued on Monday.

Lasater had claimed that Guttmann blamed their dire financial situation on her decision to stop working to stay at home with the kids and that he lied about his status at the law firm, claiming he had become of-counsel. Lasater had worked for 20 years as a lawyer before she left law practice.

The appeals court said the alleged behavior, even if true, does not rise to the level of extreme or outrageous conduct justifying the count of intentional infliction of emotional distress. And a husband and wife are not true fiduciaries, the court said, absent an agreement establishing that relationship.

A Texas divorce court would reach the same result as the case outlined in Maryland, taking consideration for the bad conduct out in the division of the marital estate, but Texas takes a different route to get there.

In Texas, there is unquestionably a fiduciary relationship owed by the spouses to each other and to the management of the community estate.  Schlueter v. Schlueter, 975 S.W.2d 584 (Tex. 1998), adopting the opinion of In re Marriage of Moore, 890 S.W.2d 821 (Tex. App -- Amarillo 1994, no writ), which underscored the fiduciary relationship owed between spouses and the community estate.  Where a spouse mismanages property to the extent that such mismanagement rises to the level of fraud, the fraud is against the community estate and is, therefore, considered a part of the overall just and right division of the community estate between the spouses incident to divorce.  The divorce court does not have to divide the community estate equally, but may consider the competing equities in determining a just and right division, even if unequal.  Fraud may be one of those equitable considerations.  Loaiza v. Loaiza, 130 S.W.3d 895 (Tex. App. -- Fort Worth 2004, no pet.).

Thsu, in Maryland, the court determined that there was no independent claim for fraud and the improper actions could be accounted for within the divorce, Texas would reach the same result, just a different route.

Writ of Habeas Corpus Granted! Right to Jury Trial Violated

The Dallas Court of Appeals yesterday GRANTED two writs of habeas corpus that I filed on behalf of a Dallas family law client in a contempt/enforcement case on temporary orders.  The Dallas Family Court judge confined the client for alleged violations of several court orders to pay various amounts of money, even after payment was made.  The contempt orders failed to run the punishment on each separate count concurrently to all of the other counts, which violated the sacred right to a jury trial.  The client's trial lawyer demanded a jury trial and paid the required fee, but the Judge denied him that right.

The right to a jury trial in the United States remains inviolate.  A party is entitled to a jury trial in a criminal or quasi-criminal case (such as a contempt proceeding, even in a civil court) when the possible punishment could exceed a total for all counts of 6 months in jail and a total of $500 fine on all counts.  When a case will have a period of confinement of less than 6 months and fine of less than $500 it is considered a "petty" offense, for which a jury trial is not an option.  However, when the punishment exceeds that limited amount, the allegations are considered "serious" and invokes the right to jury trial.

The Dallas Court of Appeals stated, "The orders signed by the trial court did not clearly state that the jail terms imposed by the court were to be served concurrently.  Accordingly, relator was sentenced to more than 6 months in jail and was entitled to a trial by jury".  As a result the Dallas Court of Appeals granted the writs of habeas corpus in favor of relator, released him from confinement (he has been out on bond), and vacated the orders made the basis of the commitment.  This decision by the Court of Appeals attaches jeopardy, which is a legal concept that prohibits retrying a person for alleged violations where the court of appeals finds the law was violated in the first trial.

Read the full opinion at Legale.