In a complex decision released yesterday, the Supreme Court of Kings County ruled that a transsexual father has standing to petition for custody of a non-biological child.
J.R. agreed to marry K.B. even though she knew K.B. was born a woman. K.B. took hormones and had done everything short of surgery to become the man she believed she was. J.R. eventually gave birth to a baby conceived through a third party sperm donor. In 2007 after the marriage between the couple had gone sour, both parents filed petitions for custody of the now five-year-old child. The mother's petition argued that:
"...it would be in the best interest of the child if custody of the child was awarded to her since the Petitioner is actually a woman. In Respondent's affirmation it is alleged that Petitioner committed acts of domestic violence against her while they lived together and that she feared for the safety of the child. In Respondent's custody petition she stated that the Petitioner was "actually a woman" and therefore the marriage was "invalid". (Cross Petition of JR August 6, 2007). "
However, the court ruled that the mother's arguments were without merit. The cases raised by the mother to bolster her position had differences which made them irrelevant to this case. The court also stated that " the fact that the Petitioner is biologically a woman is irrelevant to the question of whether there are exceptional circumstances to grant Petitioner standing to petition for custody. One factor relevant to a determination of whether extraordinary circumstances are present is the psychological bonding between the child and non-biological party."
The court also stated that "The Respondent admitted that she entered the relationship with full knowledge that the Petitioner was biologically a woman. The Respondent agreed and married the Petitioner. The Respondent received benefits as the wife of the Petitioner. The Respondent agreed and collaborated freely with the Petitioner in the decision to have a child by artificial insemination. The Petitioner signed the consent form as the husband to the Respondent which was needed to commence the procedure. The Respondent freely divided parenting responsibilities with her "husband" for almost six years and fostered a close father-son relationship between the child and the Petitioner. "
"The Court holds that the Respondent abdicated her parenting authority to the Petitioner and actively encouraged the creation of a father-son relationship between the Petitioner and the subject child. In fact, the Respondent does not dispute that a close father-son relationship bonds the Petitioner and subject child together at this time. The finding of extraordinary circumstances is based on the credible allegations made by the Petitioner which are supported by the record, the reports from ACS, the Lincoln hearing, the statements of the parties and the observation of the demeanor of the parties."
The court ordered that the father had grounds to pursue custody and ordered that the cross petitions filed by both parents will be heard to determine the custody arrangements for the child.
Click here to read the court's decision.
Read more articles by Dan Weaver on family court, child custody, child protective services and related topics.
Comments
He wasn't her "husband", he was her husband.
He isn't a she, he is a he, plain and simple.
He didn't just believe he was a man, he really was.
A fair amount of scientific research has been done which shows that transsexuals really do have brains contingent with the gender they know they are.
And forcing feminine pronouns on him is immensely disrespectful to him and trans people everywhere.
Here here, Z. I was expecting terrible things from the comment section but was pleasantly surprised to find your comment.
The writer of the article has clearly done no research on the topic and is letting blind prejudice dictate how they discuss a person. GLAAD has a release for news sources on how to respectfully report on trans issues and people. Clearly if the author had read that it was disregarded in favor of personal bias and transphobia.
Kudos, Z.
A... I'm an m2f... and I'm left wondering, WHAT? The pronoun errors happened, but to leap to the level of accusations you've made here just makes the transcommunity look petty and critical and makes it harder for us to get the accommodations we desire. Ease up a bit and just direct them to the handbook source, people with no experience will have this sort of trouble.
Very cool court decision.
I tried to write a fair report. Furthermore, no other media source reported on this case, including the glbt media. I do not subscribe to your notions about gender and do not apologize for the pronouns I used. As far as your handbook is concerned, well maybe I had better not say what you can do with it. Don't gripe when someone covers a transsexual story that the glbt media or the traditional media couldn't be bothered to cover.
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!