Join The Debate!

Subject: Inaccurate report re Britain v. Carvin

It is not too often that I question the veracity of Michael Johnson's reportage. In the case of Britain v. Carvin (May 15), the actual decision of the Washington Supreme Court returned to the Appellate Court for reconsideration of the "de facto parental rights" of the woman who was the child's seven-year-long primary caretaker. Below I submit the following summary transcript from the files of the Washington State Supreme Court.

In re the Parentage of: L.B. ; Sue Ellen ("Mian") Carvin v. Page Britain, November 3, 2005 (Co-Parenting Rights)
This decision recognized for the first time co-parenting rights in same-sex relationships. The majority ruled that a woman who raised a child from birth to age 6 while in a relationship with the girl's biological mother can seek rights as a "de facto parent." "Today we hold that our common law recognizes the status of de facto parents and places them in parity with biological and adoptive parents in our state," the court, led by Justice Bobbe J. Bridge, wrote in this 7-2 decision. "Neither the United States Supreme Court nor this court has ever held that 'family' or 'parents' are terms limited in their definition by a strict biological prerequisite." This ruling makes Washington the second state, after California earlier this year, to hold that both members of a same-sex couple are automatically the legal parents of a child born to them, without the need for an adoption. (BACKGROUND) Mian Carvin and Page Britain met in 1989 and soon after began a relationship. In 1994 Britain was artificially inseminated and bore a daughter. While Britain concentrated on her career, Carvin cared for their daughter. But, seven years later the couple's relationship was on the rocks and they split up. Britain took the little girl, and Carvin was shut out of the child's life. In 2003 a King County Superior Court Judge dismissed a petition by Carvin to be declared a parent saying that under the state's Uniform Parentage Act his hands were tied. But, the Appeals Court while agreeing that under the act Carvin could not be considered a parent there were other sections of the law which could apply. (end BACKGROUND) In ordering a new trial, the three-judge panel said that Carvin could seek status as a "de facto or psychological parent" by presenting evidence of a parent-child relationship. Or, she could argue for "third party visitation" in the same way that a child's grandparents might. Britain appealed the ruling to the state Supreme Court. The high court's decision sends the case back to a lower court for Carvin to argue her case for visitation. But the justices had a warning for the judge, and others in cases involving same-sex couples with children. "We strongly urge trial courts in this and similar cases to consider the interests of children in dependency, parentage, visitation, custody, and support proceedings," the court wrote, and "to act on their behalf and represent their interests would be appropriate and in the interests of justice."

Mr. Jackson's reportage gave a spin to this decision that I believe falsely sets an inappropriate valuation by his readers. Please note that I am not commenting on the fact that this case involves two women living together in a sapphic manner. My request for full and accurate reporting is limited to the focus on concern for the chlld involved, which I believe supersedes consideration of the same-gender relationship of the two women involved.

A full and fair reading of the Justices' opinion bears out their reputation, based upon many previous decisions, for limited judicial review. They typically avoid "legislation from the bench" decisions.

Skip Cashwell
Windsor, CT