Hey Kansas? Wha' Happened To You?

I mean, you went all equality and stuff when I had my back turned.

It seems that just last week the Kansas Supreme Court ruled that the non-biological mother of children in a same-sex relationship is entitled to the same parental rights as the biological mother.

In Kansas … Take a moment and let that sink in.

The ruling involved the case of Kelly Goudschaal and Marci Frazier, whose long-term relationship deteriorated after they had become parents of two girls who are now 10 and 8; the girls were conceived by artificial insemination and carried by Goudschaal.

The women had a co-parenting agreement that stated Frazier’s “relationship with the children should be protected and promoted,” and that they intended “to jointly and equally share parental responsibility,” but after they separated, Goudschaal began to limit Frazier’s visitations and then moved with the children to Texas.

Frazier sued to have the parenting agreement enforced, and after a trial, Johnson County District Judge Kevin Moriarty found that joint custody was “in the best interests of the children.”

And, while Goudschaal was granted residential custody, Frazier was granted “reasonable parenting time” and will pay monthly child support.

The sad part of this is that Goudschaal, in her counterclaim argued that the parenting agreement was unenforceable under Kansas law: I say sad, because she was in a committed same-sex relationship, in which both women wanted children, and agreed to a co-parenting agreement, but the minute it was over, Goudschaal decides the agreement isn’t enforceable. Not playing nice.

Then Goudschaal said the courts had no authority to address issues of child custody, parenting time and support unless they were presented “in a divorce action involving two married persons, who would necessarily have to be a man and a woman in this state, or when considering a visitation request by a grandparent or stepparent.”

So, she originally had a same-sex partnership, with children, but then comes out and says because she’s gay the courts cannot decide child custody. Luckily, for the children, and for the rights of all same-sex couples with children, Frazier argued that the best interests of the child should outweigh the need to “strictly adhere to the biological connection.”

And the court seemed to agree:

“We have declared that the public policy in Kansas requires our courts to act in the best interests of the children when determining the legal obligations to be imposed and the rights to be conferred in the mother and child relationship.”

The court added that, in its opinion, Goudschaal wanted to renege on the co-parenting agreement without regard to the rights of or harm to the children, all in the name of constitutionally protected parental rights. And, if they decided to void the co-parenting agreement they would be denying the children the opportunity to have two parents as children in a traditional marriage would have.

I say, for one thing, shame on Kelly Goudschaal for trying to circumvent the agreement she signed by using the fact that, as a gay woman, she cannot legally marry, so therefore her partner, who had been in their children’s lives from birth, would suddenly be unknown to them.

And, I say Bravo to the Kansas Supreme Court for deciding to do what’s best for the children, best for the co-parents, and best for equality.

In Kansas.

Take another moment to let that sink in.

source