The February 16, 2007 ruling of the Supreme Court of Utah in Jones v. Barlow can be accessed here. 
Howard Bashman reports that the Utah Supreme Court today affirmed the parental rights of Cheryl Barlow, the mother of a 5-year-old child, granting B…

Obviously, this is insulting, cynical nonsense. Few mothers sign co-guardianship agreements with their nannies.

Jones has made choices to use a child, to the child’s detriment, to forward her own political agenda.

I can’t agree. For starters, I’m not sure how you’ve come to the conclusion that it is “to the child’s detriment” to have a relationship with a woman she called “Mommy” for the first two years of her life. Jones’s primary interest was in maintaining a small amount of contact with a child she helped raise. Many of those who allied themselves with her effort were—not surprisingly—gays and lesbians who understood how much they stood to lose. To my mind, that’s a great deal LESS agenda-driven that Barlow’s acceptance of legal aid from the right-wing Alliance Defense Fund, whose stated mission is to help make new case law that disallows non-traditional families from enjoying the same benefits as traditional ones.

A couple genuinely wanting a strong and stable family makes CHOICES to make that happen, including relationship choices and lifestyle choices – location of homestead, etc – no matter the gender involvement.

Indeed, the child’s interests would have been better served had the couple lived in a place where their relationship could be legalized. So you’d agree that the United States does a disservice to the (innocent!) children of gay parents by not legalizing gay marriage and gay adoption, yes? I’m with you on that.

You talk about what a “dad” can expect in a custody/visitation battle. What you are talking about is exactly what you wrote — a dad. Not someone acting in loco parentis.

Indeed. See the second paragraph of comment 5. I readily acknowledge that the ruling is most likely correct. The interpretation of in loco parentis was problematic at best.

we have one fit biological parent wanting one thing and one legal stranger wanting another.

That’s what bothers me, though. Jones is a stranger only in the eyes of the law.

- The two adults entered into a relationship intended to be permanent.
- During the course of that relationship, they decided to raise a child together.
- When the relationship broke down, there was a dispute over what rights, if any, one of the parents should have.

Aside from the genders of the adults, this scenario is identical to the countless custody battles that occur every day, yet the conclusion is very different. In every other custody battle, the decision is made based on the best interests of the child. In this scenario, it was based strictly on the biology. It happened this way for one reason and one reason only: the law doesn’t recognize a relationship that clearly existed.

This difference may or may not have any ramifications for this particular child, but it is very probable that there will be cases where the best interests of a child are not served by a strictly biological decision.

Well, you know, except for the fact that I don’t say they’re “trapped in a life of heterosexuality,” and I don’t accuse them of having a political agenda when they want to get married or to adopt children. Oh, and except for the fact that you don’t actually have any idea whether I’m gay or straight. But yeah, other than that,I’m a total heterophobe! Hee.

I am “bigoted” against people who treat children as unwilling gamepieces in a radical political movement.

One might level that accusation at either party in this case.

This shows how little understanding you have about what is involved in this case.

I so wish I were free to set you straight (so to speak!) on that.

What I am saying is: Jones has made choices to use a child, to the child’s detriment, to forward her own political agenda. That is actually evil – the ill use of an innocent. A couple genuinely wanting a strong and stable family makes CHOICES to make that happen, including relationship choices and lifestyle choices – location of homestead, etc – no matter the gender involvement.

If you’re going to stay in a hostile environment to fight the man, you have to think carefully before involving a child in that situation. Apparently, Jones did put a lot of thought into creating that child with Barlow, but not to the end of creating a safe home and family environment for her. That’s just shameful.

In this case my agenda is to help expose attempts to radically remake society to the detriment of our most vulnerable citizens — children. My agenda is to support the inviolability of fit parents to direct the care of their children. So, yes I do have an agenda.

I am no more “bigoted” against people trapped in a life of homosexual behavior than you are against heterosexuals. You must have run out of good arguments. I am “bigoted” against people who treat children as unwilling gamepieces in a radical political movement. Read the previous post I did which is linked in the current post.

JONES’ “fitness” has NOTHING to do with what I was talking about. Barlow’s fitness as the MOTHER is the issue and she is a fit mother. What you support is forcing a fit parents’ wishes to be superceded by the whims of a non-parent. The court correctly ruled that the non-parent cannot overrule the wishes of the parent. “Jones’ fitness as a mother” is a nonsenscial measure as she is not the child’s mother. This shows how little understanding you have about what is involved in this case.

The scenarios I presented have everything to do with this case — all potential in loco parentis situtations. Since you are so dismissive of the relevance, I’m assuming you were thinking “of course not!” as an answer which obviously would bring you to the logical conclusion that your position is not as solid as when you started. If those situations are ridiculous, then so is this one. I should actually have brought in stronger language because what Jones was asking was not an “equal” say in the life the child, what she wanted was for her wishes to take precedence over Cheryl’s. What a bizarre idea that a court would even take such a case seriously.

Jeff–

Very well-written comment. One of your best. The big problem is that the the entire argument is fatally flawed because we have one fit biological parent wanting one thing and one legal stranger wanting another. You talk about what a “dad” can expect in a custody/visitation battle. What you are talking about is exactly what you wrote — a dad. Not someone acting in loco parentis. That is what Jones was. Such an agreement can and should, as the court correctly ruled, be controlled by the parent, not the person acting in loco parentis. What the court refused to do was invent a scheme that would allow the in loco parentis party to steer all decisions about the disposition of that person’s relationship with the child. Quite a ridiculous thing to propose. The court thought so too.

“Heterosexual parents.” Talk about incorrect framing Jeff. We don’t have to have a birds and bees conversation do we Jeff? OK, we will — only a man and woman can make a baby. : )

Glib: Jeff is quite right about the legal issues here. Your three scenarios have nothing to do with this case, and neither did the issue of Jones’s fitness as a mother (which, by the way, I have no inclination to defend). The court ruled that the nature of their relationship, independent of the persons or personalities involved, was essentially illegitimate and insignificant.

“Dear, I do not “fear” homosexual behavior.”

Dear, I was giving you the benefit of the doubt. If it isn’t fear, it’s just bigotry.

Let me get your logic straight:

Right-wing Christian legal organization that finances and publicizes anti-gay-parenting cases in hopes of establishing new case law = No agenda.

Guy who runs a blog called “Stop the ACLU” = No agenda.

Woman who was never especially active in lesbian causes until her partnerdenied her access to the daughter they raised together = EXTREME POLITICAL AGENDA!

Have I got that right?

The answer is clearly “no” to all three of your scenarios, but you seem to be framing the questions incorrectly. Jones most definitely does not have an equal claim to the child, but her assertion that she has some claim is fairly reasonable.

There are basically four things at issue in a custody case: physical custody, legal custody (the right to participate in decisions which have a significant impact on the child), parenting time, and child support.

For heterosexual parents, the vast majority of the time, it breaks down as follows: Mom gets physical custody. They share legal custody. Dad gets a reasonable amount of parenting time (usually alternating weekends plus part of the summer) and dad makes support payments to mom.

The absolute best Jones could have been hoping for was the dad’s role as non-custodial parent and there is nothing “equal” about that. I don’t even see anything that says she was seeking shared legal custody, so all she was asking for was some parenting time with a child that she considered a daughter.

I’ll readily admit that I have no personal knowledge of this case. I don’t have an informed opinion on whether or not she deserves parenting time or whether or not she has pursued this case for altruistic purposes.

Her position, however, is not wholly unreasonable.

That is evidenced by the court’s reasoning: “Because we hold that Jones lacks standing, we reverse the trial
court’s order and decline to reach the merits of the remaining arguments.”

The law doesn’t recognize the relationship that clearly existed, so Jones can be completely barred from the child’s life. Even if Jones is the manipulative @#$#@ that you suggest, what if she weren’t? What if she was the best influence in the child’s life? The court still would have reached the same conclusion and the child would have been worse off for it.

That’s what I was getting at when I said biology wasn’t everything. It’s the ultimate tie-breaker, but the bottom line is always supposed to be “the child’s best interest.” If it’s in the child’s best interest

Ditto for me on the first sentence on your last comment. Don’t assume you are closer to the situation. Nothing I have written can be challenged on the facts. I know you know this.

Of course, she pulls out the “homophobic” card. Dear, I do not “fear” homosexual behavior. What I fear is a court inventing law and definitions of a “parent” to satisfy an extreme political agenda or to make sure someone’s feelings aren’t hurt.

I must present a couple of scenarios (each involving fit biological custodial parents):

1. A woman bears a child and the father has run off. The woman lives with her mother, who, by mutual agreement between the women, takes an equal share in the care of the child. Four years later, the mother of the child finds herself in a position to move into her own place. The grandmother does not like this. She wants the child to stay with her despite the mom’s desire to take her child with her. Does the grandmother have equal claim to the child?

2. A man marries a woman with three children from previous relationships. The father of the the two younger children pays child support and is active the lives of the boys. The oldest one, say he’s nine at the time, was the product of a one-night stand and the mother was never able to locate the father. The couple stays married for five years, important formative years, and had talked about the man adopting the oldest son and the son taking the man’s name. The man had coached the oldest’s Pop Warner football team, had attended all of his track meets and parent-teacher conferences. The couple splits. Does the man have an equal claim to the oldest son?

3. A group of six people get together and form a commune. They agree to share everything and all take one last name, let’s say Earthmagnet. The six people break up into three couples (the kind that actually can and do produce children). One couple has children, the other for some reason do not. This couple decides to leave the commune. Do the other four people have an equal claim to their children?

And, barring marriage, it is legally possible to have a committed relationship, stay faithful, and put the child’s needs first – even in Utah.