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 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.

Pulliam v. Smith, 501 S.E.2d 898 (N.C. 1998), "took custody away from a father who had been raising his two sons alone for years, merely because he was involved in a committed relationship with another man," and remains good law in the state. Huffman "aims to bring fresh attention to Pulliam and proposes a better standard for determining child custody in North Carolina when one parent is homosexual." He proposes the overturning of Pulliam "to return North Carolina to a true nexus test" that requires a proof of a connection between the alleged changed circumstances and the welfare of the child, and that would require "specific evidence of harm to the child from the sexual activity of the parent, thus reflecting the same standard for all North Carolina parents."

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.

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.

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.