Bondage Radio

In a 4-3 ruling Aug. 25, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled against a woman who had sued her female ex-partner for child support.

Although the defendant, identified as in court documents as B.L., verbally agreed to parent the child with the plaintiff, identified only as T.F., before the plaintiff was artificially inseminated, the court found that the state cannot enforce that contract.

“‘Parenthood by contract’ is not the law in Massachusetts, and, to the extent the plaintiff and the defendant entered into an agreement, express or implied, to co-parent a child, that agreement is unenforceable,” wrote Justice Judith Corwin in the majority opinion.

She was joined in the majority by Justices Francis Spina, Martha Sosman, and Robert Cordy. Chief Justice Margaret Marshall, who wrote the majority opinion in the Goodridge decision, joined in dissent with Justices John Greaney and Roderick Ireland.

According to court documents, T.F. and B.L. met in 1995, began living together in 1996, and held a commitment ceremony in 1999. Throughout the relationship T.F. told B.L. that she wanted to have a child; B.L. told her she did not want to become a parent. In the summer of 1999 B.L. changed her mind and told T.L. that they should have a child. The couple selected a sperm donor together and used joint funds to inseminate T.L. In May 2000, two months before T.L. gave birth to a son, their relationship ended. B.L. initially said she would financially support the child, but later told T.L. she wanted no contact with either her or her son.

Attorney Bennett Klein of Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders (GLAD) and lead counsel for T.F., said GLAD argued that the child would not have been born without B.L.’s agreement to support him.

“Our argument is that … when you intend and agree to bring a child into the world, you are responsible for supporting the child, even if you have no biological connection to the child,” said Klein. He called the decision “disappointing” and said that “it doesn’t reflect the reality of children’s lives today.”

Yet the majority held that under current law B.L. has no legal relationship to the child. She had not adopted the child, nor had she lived with the child for any period of time or served as a “de facto” parent.

“Because the defendant is not a parent under any of the statutory provisions enacted to establish parenthood, she has no duty to support the child financially, and she may not be ordered to pay child support,” wrote Corwin for the majority.

Writing for the dissent, Greaney argued that D.L.’s verbal agreement to parent the child and her actions in helping arrange the insemination obligate her to pay child support.

“That the defendant may regret her words and conduct, and view the remedy as harsh, is of no consequence,” wrote Greaney. “… The child may have been abandoned by the defendant, but he should not be abandoned by the court.”

Klein said that the ruling sets a precedent against recognizing the financial obligations of non-biological parents to their children, but he cautioned that the ruling is narrow in scope. He said it would not apply to child support cases involving married same-sex couples. He also said unmarried couples planning to have children should consider drawing up a written agreement that both parents plan to support their children.

“This case very well may have come out differently if there had been an explicit agreement to pay child support,” said Klein.

Ethan Jacobs is a staff writer at Bay Windows. His e-mail address is ejacobs@baywindows.com.

Comments, criticism or praise regarding this article or writer — or just about any other subject of interest to the lesbian and gay community — are always welcome.

Send comments with contact information to Letters to the Editor