Lesbian mom loses parental rights, and wife, to child's sperm donor

[martybegan]

In both cases you have a married couple who can not conceive on their own.

Still doesn't make the situation equal. You may WANT it to be equal, but it isn't.

Just like some guy getting mutilated may WANT to be a woman, but will never be one.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

if i read this right the judge gave the child to a heterosexual couple which is a good thng

He gave the kid to its parents. That used to not be radical.
Democrats and democrat stupidity are the greatest threat to humanity.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

The BC should include biological parents only, as it is a source document that explains the source of the person's DNA, which can have medical implications.

For same sex couples some easier adoption or joint custody process can be created without messing with the purpose of a birth certificate.

You are aware that after a child is adopted, an amended birth certificate is issued. Instead of the biological parents' names, the new birth certificate will have the names of the adoptive parents, right?

The BC is not about DNA but about who has parental rights.

 

[martybegan]

You are aware that after a child is adopted, an amended birth certificate is issued. Instead of the biological parents' names, the new birth certificate will have the names of the adoptive parents, right?

The BC is not about DNA but about who has parental rights.

The original BC still remains, hence amended and not "replaced"

 

[jwoodie]

In both cases you have a married couple who can not conceive on their own.

I don't mind the use of "couples" or even "spouses," but two "wives" or "husbands" is a spurious mockery of marriage.

 

[martybegan]

I don't mind the use of "couples" or even "spouses," but two "wives" or "husbands" is a spurious mockery of marriage.

I don't mind that as much. Now if one wants to be called wife and one husband then that is strange.

 

[jwoodie]

I don't mind that as much. Now if one wants to be called wife and one husband then that is strange.

What if Yin wants to be called Yang?

 

[martybegan]

What if Yin wants to be called Yang?

If they ask nicely and stay consistent I'll play along.

However if they act like I should know better, or demand I do, or change whatever they want to be called on a whim, then they/he/she/it can go fuck themselves.

 

[jwoodie]

If they ask nicely and stay consistent I'll play along.

Wouldn't that offend Chinese philosophy?

 

[martybegan]

Wouldn't that offend Chinese philosophy?

Eh, not really that concerned about offending the Chinese.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

There should be some record of who it is, even if redacted. and even if not identified that is no reason to add someone who has no biological connection to the person in question.
This isn't equal. Two women simply cannot have a child naturally, same as two men.
Your problem is you delude yourself into thinking these are equal.

There is a longstanding common rule that when a married woman bears a child, her husband is automatically considered to be the legal father of that child, even if the child was a product of that woman cheating on her marriage with another man. Even if it is proven that someone else is actually the biological father of the child, the husband has first claim on the child.

In an older thread about this same story, it came out that the former non-mother tried to invoke this rule, on the basis of her fake “marriage” to the child's actual mother; and that a judge working on the case rightfully rejected this argument, observing that as it applies to a genuine marriage between a man and a woman, the rule reflects an assumption that is usually true, that the woman's husband is the father of her child; while in the case of a mockery of a “marriage” between two women, it is biologically impossible for one woman to be the father of a child born by the other.

 

[Rust_Cohle]

The judge made a sound ruling her and the parents are indeed the biological father and mother!

An Oklahoma woman has no parental rights over the son she raised for two years with her estranged wife, who has since started dating the former couple’s sperm donor, a judge ruled Monday.

Kris Williams and Rebekah Wilson, who were legally married in June 2019, were both initially listed on the boy’s birth certificate when Wilson gave birth to him in August 2019, according to court documents. The boy, referred to only as W.R.W.W. in the judge’s ruling, was conceived using the sperm of Harlan Vaugh, with whom Wilson entered a “Known Sperm Donor Agreement” in September 2018.


Williams and Wilson, however, split in November 2021, and Wilson moved in with Vaughn shortly afterward, court documents state. But while Williams was on the child’s birth certificate, she did not adopt him before she split with Wilson, and she has not seen him since Nov. 23, 2021.

“The reality is that the law provides a legal remedy available to Williams,” Oklahoma County District Judge Lynne McGuire wrote in her decision, referring to adoption. “She knowingly chose not to pursue it.”

McGuire’s ruling found Wilson and Vaughn, who have since had a second biological child together, to be the “legal parents” of W.R.W.W.

Williams told NBC affiliate KFOR of Oklahoma City that she was “in shock” by the judge’s ruling.

“I can tell you that that brings a lot of anger and emotion on me,” Williams said through tears Tuesday. “Why? Just why?”

In a statement to KFOR, Vaughn said that he and Wilson are “grateful for the court’s validation.”

Lesbian mom loses parental rights, and wife, to child's sperm donor

The boy’s biological mother and sperm donor, who are now dating, are the child’s “legal parents,” an Oklahoma district judge ruled.

www.nbcnews.com

Hahahahahahaha good

 

[Bob Blaylock]

In both cases you have a married couple who can not conceive on their own.

No matter what absurd legal fictions may be constructed, there is, and can be no such thing as a genuine “marriage” between two people of the same sex. By definition, marriage has always been, and will always be, between a man and a woman. Government can no more change this in any genuine sense, by passing a law, than it can cause two plus two to equal ten, by passing a law to that effect.

And likewise, hard science dictates that a child cannot have two parents of the same sex. It takes a man and a woman—a father and a mother—to create a child, and to properly raise a child.

 

[martybegan]

There is a longstanding common rule that when a married woman bears a child, her husband is automatically considered to be the legal father of that child, even if the child was a product of that woman cheating on her marriage with another man. Even if it is proven that someone else is actually the biological father of the child, the husband has first claim on the child.

In an older thread about this same story, it came out that the former non-mother tried to invoke this rule, on the basis of her fake “marriage” to the child's actual mother; and that a judge working on the case rightfully rejected this argument, observing that as it applies to a genuine marriage between a man and a woman, the rule reflects an assumption that is usually true, that the woman's husband is the father of her child; while in the case of a mockery of a “marriage” between two women, it is biologically impossible for one woman to be the father of a child born by the other.

That's a rule that's probably a bit long in the tooth. BC's should worry about biological parentage, there can be other documents that worry about who are the actual legal guardians.

If we have to separate the two due to current situations so be it. As I said earlier, I have no issue with streamlining the adoption process for same sex couples to get joint custody. Hell I would even be OK with said paperwork being done even before the kid was born.

 

[pknopp]

No matter what absurd legal fictions may be constructed, there is, and can be no such thing as a genuine “marriage” between two people of the same sex.

And yet there is.

 

[Concerned American]

There should be some record of who it is, even if redacted.

In a case that I have personal knowledge of that involved an adopted child, the biological parents information was put under seal but it can be opened for compelling medical/dna reasons while keeping the biological parents identities hidden.

 

[martybegan]

And yet there is.

Not according to most religions. There is no such thing as a SSM Catholic Marriage.

It should be called something else. Hell poly marriages have more historical standing, at least 1 man-multiple women.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

No matter what absurd legal fictions may be constructed, there is, and can be no such thing as a genuine “marriage” between two people of the same sex.

And yet there is.

An absurd legal fiction, created to pander to degenerate sexual deviants, nothing more.

Genuine marriage always has and always will be, only between a man and a woman, never between two men or between two women.

Two plus two will always equal four, and it will never equal ten.

And government has no more power to change one of these realities than it has to change the other.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

Parental rights??
Since when was it a right to assume custody of someone else’s kid?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

The thread title is a lie she is not the mom. The REAL mom and the REAL Dad got custody.