You are here: / / SAME-SEX SPOUSE OF BIOLOGICAL MOTHER HAD STANDING TO SEEK VISITATION WITH...

SAME-SEX SPOUSE OF BIOLOGICAL MOTHER HAD STANDING TO SEEK VISITATION WITH CHILDREN CONCEIVED BY ARTIFICIAL INSEMINATION; CALIFORNIA MARRIAGE RECOGNIZED UNDER PRINCIPLES OF COMITY.

The Second Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Roman, affirming Family Court, determined one of the parties to a California same-sex marriage, Kelly S., had standing to seek visitation with the couple’s children, now in New York with the birth mother, Farah M., notwithstanding the parties’ failure to comply with California’s artificial insemination law. The two children named in the visitation proceedings were conceived by artificial insemination performed in the home by the mother, Farah M. All three of the couple’s children were fathered by the same sperm donor, a friend who maintained a relationship with the children. The Second Department held that Kelly S., who moved to Arizona after the couple separated, under principles of comity, had standing to bring an action for visitation in New York:

Here, the parties first entered into a registered domestic partnership in California in 2004, prior to the birth of Z.S., and thus, Kelly S. was the presumed parent of Z.S. by virtue of the parties’ status as registered domestic partners (see Cal Fam Code §§ 297.5[d]; 7611[a]). Moreover, Kelly S. gave her consent to be named as a parent on the birth certificate of Z.S., and the parties were later married in California in August 2008, making Kelly S. the presumed parent of Z.S. pursuant to California Family Code § 7611(c)(1). After the parties’ marriage, the child E.S. was born. Thus, Kelly S. is presumed to be the natural parent of E.S. by virtue of the parties’ marriage pursuant to California Family Code § 7611(a). Furthermore, the Family Court, as a matter of comity, properly recognized Kelly S. as the parent of the subject children under New York law … . Matter of S. v Farah M., 2016 NY Slip Op 02676, 2nd Dept 4-6-16

FAMILY LAW (SAME-SEX SPOUSE OF BIOLOGICAL MOTHER HAD STANDING TO SEEK VISITATION WITH CHILDREN CONCEIVED BY ARTIFICIAL INSEMINATION; CALIFORNIA MARRIAGE RECOGNIZED UNDER PRINCIPLES OF COMITY)/SAME-SEX MARRIAGE (SAME-SEX SPOUSE OF BIOLOGICAL MOTHER HAD STANDING TO SEEK VISITATION WITH CHILDREN CONCEIVED BY ARTIFICIAL INSEMINATION; CALIFORNIA MARRIAGE RECOGNIZED UNDER PRINCIPLES OF COMITY)/COMITY (SAME-SEX SPOUSE OF BIOLOGICAL MOTHER HAD STANDING TO SEEK VISITATION WITH CHILDREN CONCEIVED BY ARTIFICIAL INSEMINATION; CALIFORNIA MARRIAGE RECOGNIZED UNDER PRINCIPLES OF COMITY)/VISITATION  (SAME-SEX SPOUSE OF BIOLOGICAL MOTHER HAD STANDING TO SEEK VISITATION WITH CHILDREN CONCEIVED BY ARTIFICIAL INSEMINATION; CALIFORNIA MARRIAGE RECOGNIZED UNDER PRINCIPLES OF COMITY)

You might also like
CHILD’S MOTION FOR FINDINGS TO ALLOW HIM TO PETITION FOR SPECIAL IMMIGRANT JUVENILE STATUS (SIJS) SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, THERE WAS EVIDENCE THE CHILD WOULD BE KILLED UPON RETURN TO EL SALVADOR (SECOND DEPT).
THERE WAS EVIDENCE DEFENDANTS’ EMPLOYEES DIRECTED TRUCKS TO DRIVE OVER THE DEFECTIVE SIDEWALK WHERE PLAINTIFF SLIPPED AND FELL, RAISING A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANTS CREATED THE SIDEWALK DEFECT (SECOND DEPT).
Show-Up Identification Procedure Unduly Suggestive
THE LANDLORD AND PROPERTY MANAGER DEMONSTRATED THE POWER-OPERATED DOOR WHICH ALLEGEDLY STRUCK PLAINTIFF WAS NOT DEFECTIVE AND THEY HAD NO NOTICE OF ANY DEFECTS (SECOND DEPT).
PETITIONER DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE COUNTY HAD TIMELY KNOWLEDGE OF THE FACTS UNDERLYING THE FALSE IMPRISONMENT AND MALICIOUS PROSECUTION CAUSES OF ACTION; THEREFORE PETITIONER SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM (SECOND DEPT).
SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE CONFIRMED THE REFEREE’S REPORT; THE REPORT WAS BASED UPON BUSINESS RECORDS WHIDH WERE NOT PRODUCED OR IDENTIFIED (SECOND DEPT).
THE TEN-MONTH DELAY BEFORE SEEKING TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT AND DEFENDANT’S SPECULATIVE ALLEGATION OF PREJUDICE WERE NOT SUFFICIENT GROUNDS FOR DENYING THE MOTION TO AMEND (SECOND DEPT).
THE MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT AS A MATTER OF LAW SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED; THE MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT AS AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; A NEW TRIAL IS NECESSARY BECAUSE AN APPELLATE COURT CANNOT MAKE NEW FINDINGS OF FACT IN A JURY TRIAL (SECOND DEPT).