New York Judge Allows Biological Mom to Adopt Own Son

Via Associated Press:

Adoption gives woman 'full and unassailable' parental rights, judge says

NEW YORK — A judge in New York City has granted the adoption petition of a woman whose egg was implanted in her domestic partner and resulted in the birth of a son.

Surrogate Court Judge Kristin Booth Glen says she is convinced that the woman, identified only as Mona A., is already the legal parent of the 15-month-old boy.

But in her ruling on Friday, April 10, the judge said the adoption will give Mona A. her “full and unassailable” parental rights.

The women, Mona A. and Ingrid A., got married in the Netherlands in 2004 after being together 11 years. The judge says that while the Netherlands marriage is recognized by New York state, the legal adoption will ensure Mona’s rights throughout the United States.

© Copyright by DallasVoice.com

http://www.dallasvoice.com/artman/publish/article_11085.php

Subscribe to my blog at: http://www.surrogacyeggdonorblog.com/subscribe.html
 

FRIDAY LEGAL UPDATES - Lesbian Couple Suing for Access to IVF & Woman Suing for Loss of Last Embryo

Unfortunately, due to my attendance at the Donor Egg Meeting in South Carolina, today’s updates are minimal. Hopefully, this conference will give me plenty to blog about next week, so stay tuned.

UK - Lesbians Want Access to IVF from NHS. The Sun is reporting the following: “Caroline Harris and Julie McMullan claimed discrimination and breach of human rights after they were rejected for IVF treatment. They say they suffered “distress and anxiety” — and ran up a bill of £11,000 paying for private care.

They want a judge to review the decision by NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde .  The couple, whose challenge is backed by equality officials, also want the health board to order fertility treatment for Caroline.

NHS chiefs insist the service, which costs £3,300 a time, is for couples who have tried in vain to conceive in the normal way. In papers lodged at the Court of Session in Edinburgh, they claim Caroline and Julie do not fit the definition of an infertile couple.

But the women claim official rules do not mention that only same-sex couples can get treatment.”

Furthermore, “Last night, the Equality and Human Rights Commission Scotland — who are backing the women — said that “discrimination of this type is unlawful.”

Spokeswoman Lynn Welsh added: ‘It will not be tolerated in a fair society. Equality means that while no one has an absolute right to receive treatment, the services provided by the NHS have to be available to everyone equally.’

A full hearing is expected at a later date. “

Click Here for Complete Article

Australia – An Australian woman claims her fertility lost her last embryo, thereby thwarting her chances at motherhood – and she is suing for pain and suffering. The article provides details as follows: “The woman, said to be in her late 40s, alleges Melbourne IVF staff allowed her potential baby to be destroyed.

She claims to have paid storage fees for years to preserve on ice the last of 13 embryos created during infertility treatment in 2003 and 2004.

But the embryo allegedly couldn't be found for a final round of treatment in 2007.

The woman has launched legal action in the County Court against Melbourne IVF, which is expected to defend the claim.

Court documents filed by the woman's lawyers this week claim the would-be mom started IVF treatment in October 2003.

A total of 31 eggs were harvested and 13 of the resulting embryos were frozen, the suit says.

The woman alleges Melbourne IVF's Dr. Geoffrey Clarke assured her one embryo would be kept in storage for later use.”

Click Here for Complete Article

Click Here for Another Article On This Case

Theresa M. Erickson, Esq.
Surrogacy Lawyer & Egg Donation Lawyer 
www.EricksonLaw.net

Subscribe to my blog at: http://www.surrogacyeggdonorblog.com/subscribe.html

 

Supreme Court of West Virginia considering same-sex adoption by Lesbian Couple

The Supreme Court of the State of West Virginia is considering whether an infant placed with a lesbian couple after she was born to a drug addicted mother shall remain with the couple, according to West Virginia Metro News.   The Department of Health and Human Services did approve the couple for foster care, but the trial court judge wanted the child to be removed from the home in order to provide her a more "traditional" home with a mother and father.

I would like to hear everyone's view on this case and what the end result should be.  Currently, WV state law does allow singles and heterosexual married couples to adopt in WV.  In fact, one of the women in this case has actually successfully adopted another child. 

Theresa M. Erickson, Esq.
Surrogacy Lawyer & Egg Donation Lawyer 
www.EricksonLaw.net

Subscribe to my blog at: http://www.surrogacyeggdonorblog.com/subscribe.html

 

 

CA Supreme Court Issues Ruling in Lesbian Insemination Case

Yesterday the California Supreme Court made a landmark decision regarding Lesbian Artificial Insemination and Doctor Discrimination. The court ruled that Doctors are barred from refusing medical care to gays and lesbians based on the Doctor’s religious beliefs. This is a huge decision for gay and lesbian rights and was a unanimous decision, whereas the May decision legalizing gay marriage in the state of California was a 4 to 3 decision. Hopefully, this is just the first of the court’s decisions to support gay and lesbian rights when it comes to bearing children. Click Here for Article

In the California case of North Coast Women’s Care Medical Group, Inc v. Benitez, the Supreme Court of California is set to decide whether or not a clinic, or physician, can successfully use a defense of religion when deciding not to treat a patient based on their marital status or sexual orientation. 

The patient, in this case, is alleging that North Coast Women’s Care Medical Group, and their physicians, refused to provide her with fertility treatments because of her sexual orientation. However, North Coast defends that their refusal of treatment was based on the free exercise of their religious ideals and their supposed right to refuse treatment on the ground of marital status.

According to California law, the rule exists that a doctor may refuse to perform certain medical procedures in accordance with their religious beliefs at large; however, they may not discriminate on a patient by patient basis in determining whether to not perform certain medical procedures while using religion as a defense.  

Under California law, at the time the complaint was brought, the patient was not considered to be legally married to her partner. Yet, under the Unruh Act, it is unconstitutional to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation, which now also applies to discrimination based on marital status. After almost 8 years, the case has finally reached the Supreme Court of California on the heels of the decision to legalize gay marriage in California. 

As for now, the court has issued a writ of mandate directing the trial court to vacate its order granting summary judgment on the physicians' religion-based defense and to enter an order denying the motion for summary judgment as to the physicians. This could be a very controversial and possibly a society changing decision. The Supreme Court of California currently has 90 days to come to a decision the issue.