So, I read this article and decided to share it since I think it's been awhile since we've had a good, thought-provoking debate thread. Here is the Article on Yahoo! News... and I shall copy it below for those that dislike clicking links:

Biological Mom Kept From Child in Lesbian Legal Case
By SUSAN DONALDSON JAMES | ABC News – Wed, Jan 4, 2012

Tina's biological daughter turned 8 this week, but she has not seen the girl since Dec. 22, 2008, because of a custody fight with her former lesbian partner. The partner is unrelated to the child, but gave birth to her.


"I thought I'd have her back on her birthday," said Tina, a law enforcement officer, whose name was never on the birth certificate and who has been denied parenting rights under Florida state law.


For 11 years, the Brevard County couple forged a committed relationship, living together, sharing their finances and raising a daughter. Tina's egg was fertilized with donor sperm and implanted in her partner's womb.


But when their romance fell apart when the child was 2, the Florida courts had to decide, who is the legal parent, the biological mother or the birth mother who carried the unrelated child for nine months in her womb?


A trial court summarily sided with Tina's ex-partner, citing Florida statute. "The judge said, 'It breaks my heart, but this is the law,'" according to the birth mother's lawyer, Robert J. Wheelock of Orlando.


But on Dec. 23, a state appeals court rejected the law as antiquated and recognized both women as legal parents.


Citing the case as "unique," the 5th District Court of Appeal ruled that both the U.S. and Florida constitutions trump Florida's law, according to the Orlando Sentinel, which first reported the story.


"I am elated and I am thankful," said Tina, now 41. "I am hoping things will run smoothly from this [point] forward, but it may not be the case. She is appealing and trying to keep me away from my daughter."


Court papers identify both women only by their initials. ABCNews.com is withholding Tina's last name to protect her privacy.


Wheeler has asked for a stay of Tina's rights and said the case will surely go to the Florida Supreme Court and, he hopes, all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court.


"I made a decision to have a child and raise her, not so someone else could keep her away from me," said Tina. "I want to see her grow and be a part of her life. The longer time passes the more I am missing out."


Wheelock would give no personal details about the birth mother, including where she is living with the child. He said she could not be available to talk to ABCNews.com on "such short notice."


The case, he said, is an important one.


"Anything to do with gay rights is a big deal," said Wheelock. "It will probably raise the level of conversation significantly for the next few years."


But he said the case, which has lingered for two years, will take time. "Nothing is that quick or easy," he said.


"The real person who is being affected is the kid, who has had a very stable life for a long time and now it's thrown in the mix here, a pawn in some grander scheme," said Wheelock. "There is a human side to this."


The plight of both women and their young daughter highlights the murky laws that surround same-sex families, particularly in states like Florida that do not recognize gay marriage. The state only legalized second-parent adoption last year, too late for Tina.


"I was told to see a counselor and I should have gone to a lawyer to get surrogacy paperwork so that didn't give her all the rights when she shares no biology with her," she said.


The Brevard County couple, who worked on the same police force, lived as a married couple, according to Tina's lawyer, Robert A. Segal of Melbourne.


"They couldn't solemnize the relationship, but they had been living together, owned property together, shared bank accounts and income," he said. "They held themselves up to the world as a committed couple."


"It's a moral, ethical and legal issue," said Segal. "The court sees it as a clear intent on the part of these parties to very deliberately bring a child into the world and to raise her together."


Gay advocacy groups hailed the appellate decision giving both mothers parenting rights, but warned that because many states do not recognize same-sex relationships, children are often the victims.


"Certainly a mother, like most parents, would go to the ends of the earth not to lose her relationship with the child," said Beth Littrell, an attorney in the southern regional office of LAMBDA Legal.


The law provides no distinction between biological and birth mother and has "not caught up with science or the state of same-sex marriages," ruled the appellate court.


"It's heartbreaking when they have no recourse," Littrell said. "And all kinds of harm can be created for the child with these ambiguous laws."


When Tina and her partner decided to have a child, the birth mother was 39 and infertile. Her egg was harvested and fertilized with by sperm from an anonymous donor, who relinquished his rights to the child.


When the child was born in 2004, the women hyphenated their names as the child's last name.


"They did everything that a very happy family does, but the relationship broke down," said Segal.

Lesbian Couple Were at First Amicable

Tina's lawyer said that the birth mother had turned "mean" after an amicable separation. "It happens a lot in divorcing couples," said Segal.


He said his client had been painted as a "donor mother," which was far from the truth.


"That is not a term that has legal sense to it," Segal said. "She was not giving [her eggs] with no strings attached and relinquishing rights. That wasn't happening here. She intended to be part of the child's life."


At first, the biological mother paid child support to her ex-partner and the couple worked out a time-share arrangement with their daughter, who had moved with her birth mother back with family in North Carolina.


But at some point, the birth mother decided to go to Australia for an educational law enforcement program, taking the child with her and not telling her ex-partner.


"Letters were returned by the birth mother's mother and she got tight-lipped," said Segal. "We started piecing things together and bringing in an investigator from Australia."


Tina and her lawyer filed a petition at the trial level asking to be declared a legal mother with parental rights. She also challenged the constitutionality of Florida law.


"The bottom line was, we wanted her to be a legal parent and given enforceable legal rights," said Segal.


The appeals court sent the case back to circuit court to determine visitation, custody and child support arrangement with an emphasis on the well-being of their daughter.


Two other similar court cases in New York City and California are also raising national attention.


"It does appear to be a trend where courts are looking at the intention of the parties to decide who the legal parents are, and that has applications for [couples] who plan to have a child and create that child through artificial insemination and to raise that child, even if the relationship goes awry," said LAMBDA Legal's Littrell.


"It was a great decision for this family and for each of the parents with the child at the center of the controversy," she said. "The language and the reasoning the court employed bode well for same-sex couples across the board."


As for Tina, she is now living with a new partner and has another child and one on the way. She said her legal fight has been expensive, but "all worth it if I can get her back."


"Shame on me," said Tina that she didn't understand the legal complexities that would be involved. "I did not know that I would not be on the birth certificate, that I would not have any legal right to my biological child."

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What are your opinions? As mentioned in the article, this is starting to be a growing concern legally because there are no clear laws, especially in states that deny homosexual couples the right to marry. Personally, I think they both have equal rights as parents, and I think the recent court ruling should be upheld to grant Tina those rights. This could be a major court ruling that helps define custody laws for gay couples, and I think that is a good thing.

Before you reply, I ask the following - This isn't a thread about whether or not you think homosexuality is right or wrong, nor about the right to marry. It's about parental rights. So please, no rants or raves, or flaming... because I really don't feel like being the b**ch mod.

Aw man,those dang same sex partners.
Jokes, you dont have to be the b*tch mod =p
I think tina gave the egg,raised the child,apparently parted amicably and still wanted joint custody,ergo she is as entitled as the other partner,that other partner is being selfish,petty,imature and cruel,not just to tina but her daughter,by denying her the right to see her other parent.
Both were pivital in the daughters life so both have a right.the childs 8,just ask her if she wants both her mothers,if the answer is yes,thats how it should be.

Well, to me they both participated in the process of having the child.... one parent provided the biology and the other provided the "oven". They also had the child within the confines of a committed relationship under the pretence that it is "their" child even though one parent is not actually biologically related. I think this case should be treated similarly to any other case of custody. Both women are "parents" to the child and should work out some sort of agreement for visitation etc.

Now another factor to consider is that both the birth mother and child have been in Australia for the last three years... I don't really think visitation is easy to arrange in that kinda circumstance. Also, in any other custody dispute... wouldn't that have been considered kidnapping? Will there be retroactive punishment? Should there be?

warmaker : Um... the birth mother is not the biological mother, so that last sentence was a bit contradictory.

You do raise a good point though, as in most court cases regarding custody, it is awarded to the parent best able to provide for the child. I assume that, should this recent ruling be upheld, that court case will be pending. I just think it is so sad that Tina had to fight in court just for the right to be listed as a parent at all when it is her egg that was used.

Elara : Bah, you know what I meant.

DNA = Custody rights, unless that mother is a direct threat to the health and well-being of the kid.  But since possession is 9/10 the law, it looks like we know who'll win this round.

That is essentialy little better than kidnaping,the conceiver sounds like a lousy parent to me.

I don't think DNA or who conceived the child should be taken into consideration. This should not be treated differently than a child with DNA from both parents. If they had adopted this child how would they determine who had custody? They would look at a few things like who is the more responsible parent, who will give this child the best life etc. Or they would possibly do a joint custody if both parents seemed fir to raise the child and could agree upon it.

I don't see why this should be treated any differently. Homosexuals are asking for the same rights as everyone else, not to have more/different rights.


Also Elara, you pointed out a mistake that warmaker said but the article made the same mistake too. Either that or birth mother doesn't mean the woman who gave birth to her in this case lol.

"When Tina and her partner decided to have a child, the birth mother was 39 and infertile. Her egg was harvested and fertilized with by sperm from an anonymous donor, who relinquished his rights to the child."

smotpoker86 : Actually, while a bit unclear, it did not make the same mistake. The birth mother was infertile, so Tina's egg was used.

Also, the point of the article is that Tina is asking for the same rights, not different ones.

I think it's just petty that the birth mother is trying to keep their daughter from Tina. I have a daughter, I can say with confidence that I would never, ever keep her from her father unless he had harmed her, molested her, or anything that had to do with HER, rather than any issue he and I had with each other. It's not fair to the other parent, and most importantly, to the child. It's gross that she's using the whole same sex parent trump card since the laws are still iffy and unjust in a lot of special situations, like this one. As the article and you guys have already stated, she put in her egg and helped pay for/raise her daughter. She's done her part in parenting the child.

This of course isn't to say that I think Tina should get full custody, but they should have a joint guardianship.

I think this should be treated like any other divorced couple. When a mom and dad are divorced (unless one of the parents is an unfit parent) then the mom and dad share custody. I don't see any difference between them sharing custody and a heterosexual couple sharing custody.

I agree with Geeo. In my opinion, both women are a parent to the child because they both directly planned and contributed to conceiving and giving birth to her, as a couple. It should be treated like a heterosexual custody case where both people have legal parental rights.