As Above the Law points out, it is ironic that on the day a federal judge in struck down California’s ban on same sex marriage, a New York appeals court ruled that a same-sex partner may be liable for child support.
In the case H.M. v. E.T, the Court ruled that the when the
partner of a child’s biological mother consciously chooses, together with the biological mother, to bring that child into the world through [artificial insemination,] and where the child is conceived in reliance upon the partner’s implied promise to support the child, a cause of action for child support . . .has been sufficiently alleged . . .
As Linda McClain, a Boston University law professor who specializes in family law, noted in the WSJ Law Blog, the ruling “is very much in keeping with the notion that it’s better for children to have two parents, than one, and why deprive a child of a source of parental funds?”
This decision also serves as reminder that marriage is more than a celebratory party; it is a relationship that creates legal obligations and responsibilities.
In New York same sex couples can now divorce and be ordered to pay child support; they just can’t wed.
