The Retort

Montana Court upholds Parents Rights for Homosexuals

October 23rd, 2009 by Mike Schrage Of The Retort Staff

Recently, the highest legal authority in Montana ruled in favor of a woman who was seeking visitation rights to two adopted children she cared for within the confines of a same-sex union. Barbara Mancini had adopted the two children with the intent of raising them with then-partner Michelle Kulstad, and was seeking sole custody following the couple’s dissolution of their ten-year relationship. In 2008, a Montana District Court upheld Kulstad’s visitation rights, and the appeal went before the Supreme Court earlier this month. Mancini, who had since married a man was seeking sole custody of the two children, but was met with disappointment.

The court reached a 6-1 verdict in favor of allowing the Kulstad equal visitation rights to the two children. According to the Montana Supreme Court, Kulstad was legally considered a parent because the following criteria was met:

• The person shows that he or she provided for the day-to-day physical and emotional needs of a child by providing food, shelter, clothing, care, education and discipline;
• The child’s adoptive/birth parent allowed and intended for the parent-child relationship to develop; and
• It is in the child’s best interests to recognize and continue the parent-child relationship.

The Montana branch of the ACLU (American Civil Liberties Union) called the decision “a victory for families in all shapes, sizes and colors.”, and in adding insult to injury ruled that Kulstad was entitled to a “fair share of joint property”.

Judge Jay Nelson had the following to say about the legal precedent: “I am convinced that until our courts, as a matter of law, accept homosexuals as equal participants with heterosexuals in our society, each person with exactly the same civil and natural rights, lesbian and gay citizens will continue to suffer homophobic discrimination.”

The verdict was not without its share of criticism, however. According to the Missoulan, a spokesman for the Montana Family Foundation called the court’s decision and attempt to “simply [bend] existing law to reach a predetermined social position. ... This is an egregious decision.” It will be interesting to see the ramifications of such a hot button legal precedent and how it translates for the pro-gay marriage camp.