Three parent family constellations are becoming more common. Recent cases in Canada -- e.g., A.A. v. B.B., 83 O.R.3d 561 (2007) -- illustrate a possible future within the United States, where third parents have been typically judicially recognized only "a second father for the purposes of collecting child support in a heterosexually headed family where the mother has divorced and remarried." Lacking is any routine status of "two parents performing the full panoply of parenting duties and a third parent providing limited social parenting," as is the hope for families headed by same-sex couples. The author analyzes the Uniform Parentage Act to see what changes would be required "to accommodate multiple parenthood within this population subset."

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.”

Recent headline events -- the author specifically cites the raid on the Yearning for Zion compound in Texas on suspicions of polygamy (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/YFZ_Ranch) as well as court cases A.A. v. B.B., [2007] 278 D.L.R. (4th) 519, and Jacob v. Shultz-Jacob, 923 A.2d 473 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2007) -- have called attention to the priority family law has placed on the two-parent dyad, either to enforce or challenge it. Appleton aligns herself with those who support "multi-parentage," in which a child can have more than two parents, and writes to deepen and elaborate the defense of that view. She particularly calls attention to the ways in which the field's mantra to "child's best interest" could be fundamentally reshaped. Law does not merely recognize preexisting interests, but helps to shape them. She favors "a more pluralistic and nuanced approach that respects diversity among families and is sufficiently capacious to honor a given child's experience."

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.

Baker believes that "family law as a discipline is shifting from a set of rules designed primarily to regulate sexual relationships between adults to a set of rules designed to regulate parental relationships between adults and children." Decreased emphasis on marriage has created a "desperate need of a system to determine parenthood." The role played by social arrangements like marriage can now, she suggests, be played by biology. The values of parental "bionormativity" are that it should be private ("meaning that the state has no legitimate interest in regulating, but also no requirement to finance, parenthood") and binary ("there are at least two and only two parents"), and discourages functional parents (those who, while lacking a biological tie to the child, invest time, love and money). While the author claims that a bionormative regime does not "necessarily follow conventional political lines" -- in other words, that this is not fancy theoretical dress for fundamental conservative social policies -- it is difficult to take that assertion seriously. Pointing out the possibility that in that environment "someone eager to legitimize families with gay parents may be enthusiastic about a binary requirement for parenthood because a binary rule makes it more likely that a non-biological related partner will retain legal status," it seems more likely that it will disfavor such partners in the event of split, given the disfavor of "functional" parents.

Writing as part of a larger symposium on the fortieth anniversary of the Loving decision, Ball considers the detail that the plaintiffs in that famous case were also parents. Laws against miscegenation were often justified in terms of the potential offspring of such unions, and Ball finds that the concerns about children are echoed in today's conservative arguments against same-sex marriage. Both share the feature of essentializing a dualistic understanding of race and gender, leading the author to conclude that while most courts reject the relevance of Loving to same-sex marriage, "that case would seem to be highly relevant to an equality-based challenge to same-sex marriage bans given that the optimal parenting justification for those bans is grounded ... in the idea of natural, essential, and predetermined differences between men and women that is similar to the notion of natural, essential, and predetermined differences between whites and blacks that served as the normative foundation for the antimiscegenation regime."

The student author makes an intriguing proposal built upon the observation that "the debate over gay marriage [has] evolved into a balancing act that considers not only the rights of same-sex couples,but also the rights of these couple's children." Noting the rationales in cases like Lewis v. Harris, 908 A.2d 196 (N.J. 2006), and Hernandez v. Robles, 855 N.E.2d 1 (N.Y. 2006), the author sees a potential opening in arguments for same-sex marriage, one based on "an Equal Protection challenge based on a child's right to presumed legitimacy at birth." While interesting on its face, the article perhaps does not fully confront the unintended fallout of making marriage legitimacy a function of procreation rather than, as it is for heterosexuals, a union between two adults.

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.

Bowen raises the important question of how the different legal relationships between each parent to the child -- where one partner is the biological parent or primary adopter, while the other is a second adoptive parent -- impact the dynamics of the family itself. Research suggests that "second parent adopters had much less emotional power in the family, but often had more economic power," setting up complementary insecurities. Unawareness of the rights and obligations that have been created in this situations, and lack of confidence in these legal protections when known, combine "to undermine these families on both a macro and micro level." Bowen recommends the creation of new legal presumptions about parenthood that will reinforce these family structures.

Building upon Martha Fineman's suggestion that "governmental support for the family ought to support relationships of dependency rather than the adult sexual bond between husband and wife," Cain illustrates the ways in which "current law is biased against dependent children in non-traditional families." Looking at three examples--filing status under the federal income tax, tax credits, and state inheritance taxes, she hopes policy makers will amend laws so that "tax rules that are intended to provide benefits to households with minor dependent children...provide those benefits to all households with minor dependent children."

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.

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.

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.

Emphasizing the need to protect the children of same-sex households, Graham observes that while the "debate on the legitimacy of same-sex partnerships has concentrated largely on the partners' relationship with one another...when considering the right of a child to have the parent/child relationship recognized between the two partners who intend to be his or her parent, the debate should focus on the children, rather than the partners." She analogizes from the immigration case of Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202 (1982), which argued that while adult illegal immigrants should suffer the consequences of their chosen illegal status, those disabilities should not necessarily extend to their children who did not choose the manner of their entry to this country. Likewise, the fallout of the adults' choice "to create a family unit not recognized or protected by state law" should not exact penalties on the children of those families.

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.

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)].

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.

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.”

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.

The author considers the problem of ascertaining, from the particular view of Israeli law, parenthood of a child who was conceived by the egg of one lesbian partner being carried to term by the other. Because current law "cannot provide an adequate response," she proposes legislative changes that will allow recognition "through appearance before a registry official." Until such time, however, the Family Court will have jurisdiction over this question.

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.