More sociological than legal in emphasis, this article discusses the comments of respondents to a qualitative study of lesbian parents in the United Kingdom. Respondents discuss routes to conception and involvement of fathers in children’s lives.

Parent-child relationships are impacted when states take conflicting positions on whether to recognize a same-sex relationship. The author advocates changes to the Uniform Parentage Act to incorporate more gender-neutral principles, to promote consistency in the law, and to “avoid treating children differently based on their parents’ marital status.”

This discussion of “the presumption of legitimacy” in parenting cases reveals tensions between some feminist theorists and gay rights advocates. The author suggests an approach to parentage cases that emphasizes genetics and gestation as central to recognition of gender equality. In particular, she examines how a biological emphasis may lead to different treatment for heterosexual and lesbian couples, in opposition to gay male couples, who seek legal recognition as parents of a child.

Building on the author’s previous work asserting the morality of gay rights, this article argues that anti-gay adoption statutes in Florida and Oklahoma are immoral because they tangibly harm children (often relegating them to the foster care system) and use children as a means to send a message of disapproval about homosexuality.

In many states, family law has not responded quickly to accommodate the various permutations of the modern American family. Lesbian and gay families, in particular, are affected by the slow evolution of family law. Some courts, nonetheless, have upheld child support obligations of parents in same-sex families under equitable principles. Similarly, the American Law Institute supports impositions of child support via “parents by estoppel.” The author of this article provides an overview of the topic and supplies an array of recommendations for courts considering the issues.

This article provides an economic analysis of the foster care system and the barriers to entry that same-sex partners must overcome to adopt a child. It argues that providing homosexuals with adoptive and other rights that heterosexuals enjoy would increase demand for adoption and reduce costs of foster care and of social welfare systems.

A general discussion of same-sex parenting is followed by specific attention to the legal status of same-sex co-parents in Missouri, which is unsure at best. This article may be helpful to persons researching developing law on same-sex parenting in conservative states. In the absence of statutory guidelines, the author advocates that courts use equitable theories to protect children born to same-sex couples.

David Cruz examines the ideology of the heterosexual reproductive imperative--the belief that the "species and society must be reproduced [and that] this is naturally and properly done only by women and men acting together, and women, queer, and transfolk should just recognize the primitive truth of that and willingly bear the burdens of laws designed to reinforce this natural reality"--for its impact upon women's reproductive autonomy, same-sex marriage claims, and transgender demand for recognition.

Miller-Jenkins v. Miller-Jenkins, 912 A.2d 951(Vt. 2006), is a complicated interstate custody dispute between lesbian ex-partners involving conflicting decisions of Virginia and Vermont state courts. Dye provides a detailed history and analysis of the situation and the more recent Vermont decision, which has resulted in a conflict that “will have to be resolved by the United States Supreme Court.”

This rich legal history of same-sex parenting in America is punctuated by detailed analysis of significant cases from around the country. A traditional approach is presented in Nancy S. v. Michele G. [279 Cal. Rptr. 212 (Ct. App. 1991)], while a third-party treatment of same-sex coparents appears in five cases: In Re Olivia H. [101 Cal. Rptr. 2d 364 (Ct. App. 2000)]; In Re E.L.M.C. [100 P.3d 546 (Colo. Ct. App. 2004)]; In Re H.S.H.-K. [533 N.W. 2d 419 (Wis. 1995)]; E.N.O. v. L.M.M. [711 N.E. 2d 886 (Mass. 1999)]; and T.B. v. L.R.M. [786 A.2d 913 (Pa. 2001)]. Judicial recognition of same-sex coparenthood occurs in two analyzed cases: V.C. v. M.J.B. [748 A.2d 539 (N.J. 2000)] and In Re L.B. [122 P.3d 161 (Wash. 2005)]. Assisted reproduction cases involving same-sex parents include: Rubano v. DiCenzo [759 A.2d 959 (R.I. 2000)] and Elisa B. v. Superior Court [117 P.3d 660 (Cal. 2005)]. Enforcement of child support obligations in alternative insemination circumstances is discussed in Kristine H. v. Lisa R. [117 P.3d 690 (Cal. 2005)]. In addition to these listed cases, which are discussed in detail, several related cases receive passing attention. The article will be especially valuable to attorneys and researchers seeking citations and legal arguments.

This article proposes an alternative framework for settling child custody disputes among lesbians. This framework incorporates a mediation model that grows from and is supported by the local lesbian community. The article discusses why lesbian families are not adequately represented within existing court frameworks.

Goldhaber considers the impact on children of state Defense of Marriage Acts (“mini-DOMAs”), which deny recognition of the legal status of same-sex couples. It argues these states should allow both biological and non-biological parents in same-sex couples to have visitation/custody rights, when it would be in the best interest of the children.

This brief note asserts that adoptions by same-sex couples should not be recognized by other states under the Full Faith and Credit Clause because this practice abrogates citizens’ rights to establish their own state’s public policy through their legislatures. It argues that Congress should use the Effects Clause to combat such recognitions.

Former partners of lesbians who choose to become parents through alternative insemination may be required to provide child support under varying legal theories, including estoppel and conflicts with public policy. Scenarios are presented through close examination of four court opinions: Elisa B. v. Superior Court [117 P. 3d 660 (Cal. 2005)]; Kristine H. v. Lisa Ann R. [117 P.3d 690 (Cal. 2005)]; L.S.K. v. H.A.N. [813 A.2d 827 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2002)]; and T.F. v. B.L. [813 N.E. 2d 1244 (Mass. 2004)]. After a survey of the case law landscape, the author offers “precautionary measures for same-sex parents” that may protect the interests of their children.

Kohm et al. provide a cursory review of European laws and comparative analysis in order to extrapolate the effect that permissive same-sex parent adoption standards are having on the U.S. Rather than concede the issues as inextricably intertwined, the authors’ proclaim that the “best interest of the child” standard is often subordinated by gay rights concerns. The authors also illogically postulate that trends of low fertility rates correlate with more permissive adoption standards, therefore risking population decline.

The evolution of same-sex parenting rights in California is given both a historical and a theoretical examination in this article. The Uniform Parentage Act (UPA) and recent decisions by the California Supreme Court receive the bulk of attention: Elisa B. v. Superior Court [117 P.3d 660 (Cal. 2005)]; K.M. v. E.G. [117 P.3d 673 (Cal. 2005)]; and Kristine H. v. Lisa R. [117 P.3d 690 (Cal. 2005)].

A student-written note, this piece analyzes the inconsistent stances of those states that deny same-sex couples the right to marry, yet allow them to adopt children. The author urges courts to reconcile these inconsistencies by incorporating broader definitions of family and relationships into same-sex marriage cases. The author suggests that such an approach would allow courts to conclude that gay men and lesbians have a fundamental right to marry that states could not legally impede.

Proposed legislation in the Texas Senate would prevent lesbians and gay men from becoming foster parents. A Fourteenth Amendment analysis of the legislation is followed by a discussion of a Florida case, Lofton v. Secretary of the Department of Children and Family Services [157 F. Supp. 2d 1372 (S.D. Fla. 2001)], in which a federal court upheld a Florida ban on adoptions by lesbians and gay men. Rather than discriminate by statute, the author suggests a case-by-case approach to child placement that includes sexual orientation as one among multiple considerations.

A clear overview of the science and ethical issues of embryonic technologies precedes an examination of case law and prediction of how the Court should rule on genetic modification of embryos predisposed to an undesirable sexual orientation. Paonessa articulately surmises that the state’s interest arises at viability, and prior intervention is insufficient to preclude the use of these technologies should they become available.

K.M. v. E.G. [117 P.3d 673 (Cal. 2005)] is the focus of this discussion of the Uniform Parentage Act (UPA). The author asserts that the court improperly applied the UPA, although she supports the ultimate outcome of the case, in which each lesbian partner was granted the status and duties of a “parent.”

Reed and Kohlhaas provide an overview of Indiana case law addressing two family law issues important to homosexuals. The authors first provide a history of cases addressing property rights gained during non-marital cohabitation, including cases involving heterosexual couples which may be applicable to homosexual couples. The authors then detail the cases addressing the status of homosexual parents in child custody and adoption proceedings.

In her analysis of 78 dissents in appellate cases involving gay, lesbian, and bisexual parents between 1975 and 2004, the author posits that dissenting opinions are a valuable source of new information about cases and legal issues at hand. The role of dissenting opinions in family law and sexuality and law cases is also more broadly discussed.

Advances in assisted reproductive technology (ART) have begun to diminish the “genetic link in defining parentage.” Increasingly, legislatures and courts are recognizing the importance of “social parents,” who act as parents to children although possessing no genetic link. The author defines lesbian legal theory and then uses this critical method to examine the link, or lack thereof, between genetics and parenthood. Finally, she examines how ART and morphing social patterns are affecting the evolution of American family law.

The authors examine in detail three California Supreme Court decisions handed down in August 2005 affecting lesbian parental rights: Kristine H. v. Lisa R. [117 P.3d 690 (Cal. 2005)], Elisa B. v. Superior Court [117 P.3d 660 (Cal. 2005)], and K.M v. E.G [117 P.3d 673 (Cal. 2005)]. After discussing the decisions, the authors address questions of California law left open and the potential ramifications of the decisions for other states.

This short article presents a refutation of common arguments against the fitness of homosexuals as parents. The article argues against claims that children of homosexual parents will become homosexuals, that homosexual households produce troubled young adults, and that “dual-gender parenting” is superior to “homosexual parenting.”

In this analysis of the California case of K.M v. E.G. [117 P.3d 673 (Cal. 2005)] the author argues that state legislatures should more clearly define parenthood in light of recent advances in reproductive technologies. She asserts that parents using in vitro fertilization, surrogacy, ova donation or sperm donation should have statutorily defined rights.

Turner’s article begins with a discussion of Holtzman v. Knott[533 N.W.2d 419 (Wis. 1995)], the first United States decision to recognize a lesbian partner as the “de facto parent” of her partner’s biological child conceived and born during the relationship. After a summary of the case, Turner explores the sociopolitical factors leading to the Wisconsin decision and its varying reception in other states.

Wald explores the parentage issues affecting children conceived using assisted reproductive technologies (ART) and children resulting from extra-marital affairs. She analyzes how courts have traditionally determined who should be recognized as legal parents. The author argues that courts should entertain parenting, custody, and visitation actions brought by as many adults as have meaningfully contributed to a child’s parenting.

In K.M. v. E.G. [117 P.3d 673 (Cal. 2005)], the California Supreme Court held that a lesbian who had donated her eggs to her partner and had helped raise the resulting children had legal parentage claims. Zapotocny explores this and other cases involving same-sex unions and the custody of children. The article includes a discussion of California surrogacy law, and an exploration of legal doctrines which may protect same-sex parents.

The California Supreme Court recently decided that the Uniform Parentage Act (UPA) encompassed the circumstances of a former lesbian couple who had conceived a child through alternative insemination. The unnamed author suggests that the court should have declined to extend the UPA as this would have alerted the legislature that the UPA needs reformation to address current family structures.