A Pittsburgh
woman can see the child she parented with her lesbian former
partner even though the birth mother does not want to her to
do so, a state appeals court ruled. The case, decided Monday
by a state superior court panel, is essentially a custody
case, and the women's sexual orientation played little role
in the decision. Rather, the court said the biological
mother should not be rewarded for alienating the child from
her former partner, who is identified in court papers only
as T.B.
Lambda Legal, which argued the case for T.B., said
the ruling would protect the rights of all parents. "The
court valued this parent-child relationship the same as any
other and acted to preserve it without regard to sexual
orientation or the other parent's bitterness," said Alphonso
David, an attorney for Lambda. The appeals court sent the
case back to a judge in Cambria County, where both women
live, to determine how to arrange visitation in the child's
best interest. "The court is reinstating immediate
visitation at this point," Alphonso said Tuesday. "She is
excited to see her daughter."
The two women began a relationship in the late 1980s,
and one became pregnant through artificial insemination in
1992. The two raised the girl until they separated in August
1996. A year later a court granted custody to the birth
mother and allowed visitation rights to T.B. The biological
mother appealed. In December 2001 the Pennsylvania supreme
court ruled that T.B. had legal standing as a parent and
sent the case back to the trial court in Cambria County to
work out visitation. But county judge F. Joseph Leahey ruled
in June that because the child had been alienated from T.B.,
visitation wasn't in the child's best interest.
T.B. appealed to the superior court, saying the birth
mother had driven a wedge between her and the girl, who is
now 11. She has seen the girl only once since 1997 during a
psychological evaluation. The birth mother's attorney,
Nicholas Banda, did not immediately return a message left at
his office seeking comment. He had argued that because T.B.
had seen the child only once since 1997, there essentially
was no relationship.
Superior court judge Michael T. Joyce wrote that the
biological mother should not be rewarded for seeking to
alienate the child. "It is inconceivable that an embittered
spouse who successfully estranges the children from the
other spouse...should be rewarded," Joyce wrote. "The
preposterousness of this scenario is equally applicable to
the case...despite appellant's nontraditional status." (AP)
