Michigan Appeals Court says trial court cannot refuse to hear lesbian mother's custody case

DETROIT –
On Feb. 19, the Michigan State Court of Appeals held that a Michigan family court cannot refuse to hear a child custody case simply because it involves children whose parents are lesbians, ruling that there is no gay exception to Michigan's child custody laws.
The majority opinion said: "The question is really whether Michigan's legal framework for protecting and promoting the best interests and welfare of the children within its jurisdiction excludes children with a parent or parents who could not have adopted them under Michigan law. We conclude that it does not….The only relevant consideration in this matter is each individual party's established relationship as an adoptive parent with the children, not their relationship with each other."
Lambda Legal and the American Civil Liberties Union of Michigan represented the defendant, lesbian mother Diane Giancaspro, who was fighting for custody of her children with ex-partner Lisa Ann Congleton.
"It is well established law that Michigan courts must put the best interests of children first and decide child custody cases without regard to the sex, sexual orientation, or marital status of the parents, or whether they adopted their children in another state –there is no gay exception," said Camilla Taylor, senior staff attorney in Lambda Legal's Midwest Regional Office in Chicago. "We are pleased that the appeals court refused to credit the argument that Michigan's anti-gay constitutional amendment deprives courts of the ability to do what's best for children."
In August of 2007, Giancaspro filed papers asking a Michigan trial court to determine custody of the three children she and her ex-partner, Congleton, adopted together in Illinois before moving as a family to Michigan. When the couple's relationship ended, Congleton moved to dismiss Giancaspro's custody case, arguing that their adoption was invalid under the Michigan Child Custody Act and citing Michigan's anti-gay constitutional amendment.
In September, the trial court granted Congleton's motion, holding both parties' parental rights unenforceable in Michigan, calling into question whether the children were effectively orphans in Michigan and whether both parents would be able to do such essential things as authorize medical treatment at a public hospital, enroll them in school, or recover a lost child from a local police department.
The trial court's ruling left the children in legal limbo, without an enforceable legal connection to either parent.
In March 2008, Lambda Legal and the ACLU of Michigan filed a brief with the Michigan Court of Appeals asking the court to reverse the trial court's ruling. They argued that it violated the Full Faith and Credit Clause, which protects the validity of judicial decree – such as adoptions – across state lines. They also pointed out that Michigan's anti-gay amendment limiting marriage pertains only to adult relationships and has no effect on a court's ability to hear cases that concern only relationships between parents and children, such as custody cases.
Last week's ruling, both parties agreed, upholds long-standing Michigan law which has always interpreted these matters in the best interests of the children.
"This is a victory for children in Michigan," said Kary L. Moss, ACLU of Michigan executive director. "We are thrilled that the appeals court has reversed the trial court's decision. Concluding that children of gay parents have no protections in Michigan's courts was not only wrong, but extremely dangerous. Today gay parents and their children can rest easier knowing that they again have access to Michigan courts."
Community Organizer Penny Garder, who works with the Coaltion for Adoption Rights Equality, echoed the sentiment. "We are, of course, heartened by the Appeals Court's decision in this case on behalf of the child," Gardner said. "It is about the child's relationship with her/his parents, not about the parents' relationship with each other. It reiterates the standard by which such decisions are made, laws are passed, and people understand: what is in the best interest of the child. Clearly, having two legal parents responsible for providing love, stability and resources is in the best interest of the child."
"My concern is the well-being of my children. I want them to live in a place where their rights are protected," said Giancaspro. "I'm relieved that we can go on with our lives without worrying every day about whether I'll be recognized as their parent and able to protect them if, heaven forbid, anything should happen to them."