An Oklahoma Judge Just Transferred a Lesbian Mom’s Parental Rights to Her Son’s Sperm Donor

[IwantToRetire]

Kris Williams is a lesbian, and that means she won’t be seeing her son anytime soon. That is the official ruling of an Oklahoma court. On Monday, Oklahoma County District Judge Lynne McGuire ruled that Williams had failed to adopt her son and had forfeited her parenting rights to his sperm donor.

Advocates say Williams’ case may test the bounds of equal marriage laws in Oklahoma and beyond. According to Williams, she and her ex-partner Rebekah Wilson planned to have their son and found sperm donor Harlan Vaughn on a paternity website together. The two married while Wilson was pregnant.

www.them.us/story/oklahoma-judge-parental-rights-lgbtq-same-sex-marriage

But she didn't adopt him? She didn't do whatever she needed to do to be legally his parent. So now she's not

Sure - change the phrasing to “non-related adult” and my point becomes much stronger! I think her argument is that were she male (and not the biological father) she wouldn’t have had to adopt to retain parental rights. I’ve no idea if that’s true - if it is then it seems unfair, but edge case unfairness is not a strong argument for changing the law.

No that's true but if the real biological father popped up and sued for paternity this situation would likely happen just the same

I think the judge made the right decision. Wilson is neither the bilogicsl parent or the adoptive parent so why should she hsve parents rights.

The issue is in the US birth certificates seem to allow a range of people to be included and excluded e.g. surrogate mothers.

This would not happen in the U.K. The birth mother is always on the birth cert as mother irrespective of how the identify. The father can be unknown or blank, the biological father (DNA), the male spouse. As far as I am aware a same sex spouse can’t be on the birth very.

Sadly in both countries, and others, the law has not kept up with the rapid societal changes in relation to blended families, surrogacy and same sex marriage etc.

In the UK, two mothers are only listed on the birth certificate if there is an anonymous sperm donor and the donation is arranged through a clinic. That way it is agreed in advance the biological father is not involved. Hence parental responsibility can be given to two mothers via the birth certificate.

In the Oklahoma case the donor was found online, and was heavily involved from the beginning, as were his parents. It cannot be right in such a situation for the mother's partner, whether male or female, to be given parental responsibility without adoption, when both biological parents are already acting as parents.

The reason she chose not to adopt was because the father was so involved, so this was a barrier way before the biological mother fled DA allegedly perpetrated by the female partner leading to this case.

Wouldn't the father have had to agree to the adoption, even if the former partner had wanted it to take place? I can't imagine any court allowing it without the involved parent's leave.

Does seem that part of this would never have happened if everyone had stuck to biological reality. ie a child has a biological female parent and a biological male parent. And that doesn't change.

And there needs to be some other way of registering someone who is part of raising the child/ren. Which could over time change.

The biological mother wrote an article about the situation when everything was supposedly going well.

It is a whole parade of red flags.

www.metrofamilymagazine.com/time-to-be-brave/

Jesus, that article! One is a domestic lesbian, and the other is an oaklahomosexual

Unless it's my very sheltered upbringing showing and these are actually recognised things I've just never heard of, they both sound like attention seeking halfwits.
I wonder what he considers himself?

The non-biological mother kept saying that this wouldn't happen to a male partner with a child over two.

So maybe there is a law that her name should not be removed from the birth certificate once the child is two, which is when the bio mother fled.

But if she is a DA perp, she would up the abuse once that child turned two because at that point the bio mother is trapped.

Whatever has happened, the US allowing a partner on the birth certificate but that not creating parental responsibility seems likely to create a mess.

Oklahoma is deep south.

In the UK, two mothers are only listed on the birth certificate if there is an anonymous sperm donor and the donation is arranged through a clinic. That way it is agreed in advance the biological father is not involved. Hence parental responsibility can be given to two mothers via the birth certificate.

This might be the law but the reality is that nobody asks for proof of where you got your sperm from when you go to register the birth. Lesbian parents are always both named if they wish to be and many of them use donors found online rather than through clinics.

My understanding is that in cases where a known donor (ie not a sperm bank) is used then that donor can apply for contact with the child in exactly the same way as if the child had been conceived via a one night stand, for example.

I’m genuinely surprised that same sex couples can be registered as parents on a birth certificate. Like others, I had assumed that it was a record of the biological parents of the child.

I realise there will be occasions when the father listed is not the biological father, but that is deliberate falsification (or lack of knowledge) by the mother, which it would cost too much to police.I would have assumed the certificate would be modified if the father could demonstrate the relationship via DNA testing. Recording a same sex couple as “parents” (unless adoption is included, which would make one a legal, rather than biological parent) is an example of something being recorded by the state which is demonstrably false.

So given that people can now have the sex on their birth certificate falsified, as well as someone recorded as a parent who is obviously not a biological parent, it seems that there’s an increasing amount of unreliable information creeping in.

A marriage certificate does not render one a parent. It’s clear that, if the legal meaning of “parent”, “mother” or “father” now means something different from its original meaning, then that should be very clearly documented somewhere, with specific explanations of when the changes should be applicable and when not.

This really does feel like another case where the meaning of words are being changed, when those words are used in law and have meanings that have been accepted and stable for many, many years. It seems that modifying and eroding the meaning of words is now sometimes seen as easier than working towards changing the law itself.

It is odd to compare how in a same sex marriage both parents will have parental rights but the father/sperm donor will not, but for those outside same sex marriage, even those not even married, fathers/sperm donors can get parental rights even if they were abusive or created the child by tape.

Rape not tape.

@ScrollingLeaves I don’t think that is quite right. Sperm donors who donate through a sperm bank cannot claim parental rights. A man who donates sperm informally can indeed claim parental rights.

As for putting lesbian parents on a birth certificate: it was done to avoid the non birth mother having to adopt the child after birth. I totally agree with it.

There was a radio four programme a while back on the issue of unofficial/online sperm donation within the UK and it sounded unbelievably messy and fraught with potential issues. I think sperm donation agreements outside of actual clinics are always going to be fraught with issues.

It sounds like a reasonable premise. Is it recorded in the law, for example, how it works, what the limitations are, etc. There’s obviously confusion over what is actually recorded there.

The court's decision is here www.documentcloud.org/documents/23649403-1053622896-20230214-105340-1?responsive=1&title=1

It sounds as if she knew that she had to adopt to be the child's legal parent but did not pursue that. I don't know that Oklahoma law on birth certificates but in this country the birth certificate is not conclusive of parenthood. If, for example (in a heterosexual relationship with no donor) a man went on a birth certificate thinking he was the genetic father but a DNA test later showed he wasn't then he would be removed from the certificate because it was an error. In essence it sounds as if that is what has happened here - she went on the certificate but wasn't legall entitled to be.

Most people don't adopt children in subsequent relationships, but that's possible.

I don't think someone who is not the biological parent should ever be on the original bc. Of course mistakes and fraud happen but they should be corrected if they come to light.

But it's a legal fiction. That means the child no longer has a real record of it's parentage. It's exactly the thinking that people use to justify other legal fictions with biological relationships.

Makemetry · Yesterday 23:06
@ScrollingLeaves I don’t think that is quite right. Sperm donors who donate through a sperm bank cannot claim parental rights. A man who donates sperm informally can indeed claim parental rights.

As for putting lesbian parents on a birth certificate: it was done to avoid the non birth mother having to adopt the child after birth. I totally agree with it.

Yes, I can see that a donor through an agency would not have parental rights, but my point was that an informal donor, or father such as a o.n.s., or rapist, can get parental rights.

So, that’s why it seems odd the law can change all of a sudden to favour the non-birth giving parent in a lesbian marriage over the informal sperm donor or father.

I understand why the non birth-giving partner would want parental rights, but think the law seems contradictory.

I find it really unpleasant to refer to the biological father as the ‘sperm donor’.

You have biological parents and adoptive parents. Calling parents ‘donors’ sanitises the betrayal of children. ‘Egg donors’ and ‘sperm donors’ are essentially parents who relinquish all responsibility for raising their children made in this way, but in my opinion, they still have a moral responsibility to the child.

Admittedly, now that women can be implanted with another woman’s egg, means that a child can have two biological mothers - the biological birth mother and the genetic biological mother, which complicates things.

But the child has the right to know and have relationships with their biological parents (unless the father is a rapist).

The only reason non- biological ‘fathers’ ever get onto birth certificates is because the woman is the one who knows who the father is and prior to dna testing, you couldn’t prove who he was. Since women can become pregnant through rape, I believe that it should remain the mother, the woman who gave birth, to determine who gets to be put on the birth certificate as father.

The wording in the title also cheapens the value of motherhood, by referring to a woman who has no biological relationship or even adoptive relationship as the ‘mom’.

The child and their rights is what is important.

The child and their rights is what is important.

👆

Go to Oklahoma, and step back forty years when discussing marriage and custody laws.
Lesbophobia is not rampant, and worse in some ways than it was thirty years ago. Internalized lesbophobia is one reason for the high numbers of teen girls with ROGD.