The decisions in these cases were brought up in arguements for Will's case.
Parental rights upheld for same-sex partner
Court rules in same-sex child custody case
posted February 22, 2013
By The Capital-Journal
The Kansas Supreme Court on Friday upheld the right of a same-sex partner in a co-parenting relationship to petition courts on matters of child visitation or joint custody.
Kelly Goudschaal, the biological mother of two children, had appealed a Johnson County District Court decision granting joint custody to Marci Frazier, with whom she had a co-parenting contract. Goudschaal argued on appeal that the district court violated her constitutionally protected parental rights when it awarded parenting time to a nonparent following the couple’s breakup.
Goudschaal contended she was the only person with the constitutionally protected status of parent, and that Frazier was simply an unrelated third party. The Kansas Parenting Act, she argued, doesn’t grant legal parental rights to anyone who isn’t a biological parent or hasn’t legally adopted a child.
In a decision authored by Justice Lee Johnson, the Supreme Court found the co-parenting agreement to be valid, and said the district court had the right to consider “the existence of a mother-child relationship between Frazier and the two children; to determine the validity of the co-parenting agreement; and to enter orders with respect to child custody, parenting time and child support that are in the best interests of the children.”
The high court noted, however, that the district court hadn’t heard sufficient evidence pertaining to the best interests of the children. It ordered the district court to reconsider matters of visitation time after appointing an attorney to represent the children’s interests. It also ordered the lower court to reconsider the property settlement.
The case attracted wide interest from the American Civil Liberties Union and gay-lesbian rights groups, as well as the Children and Family Law Center at Washburn University.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sperm donor needed pact, high court rules
Posted: Saturday, October 27, 2007
By Michael Hooper
The Kansas Supreme Court ruled Friday that a sperm donor who wants to have parental rights with any subsequent children must have a written agreement with the mother.
The 4-2 decision upholding constitutionality of Kansas' current donor law was the first of its kind in the nation.
The ruling was the offspring of lawsuits involving Samantha Harrington, who conceived twins with sperm donated by Daryl Hendrix. The mother and the donor, both of Topeka, disagreed on whether they had entered into an oral agreement giving parental rights to the donor. They also disagreed on whether certain documents constituted a written agreement.
Court testimony shows Harrington, 34, a lawyer, had solicited Hendrix to donate sperm.
Hendrix, a Josten's employee, Reece & Nichols Homes marketing director and home decorator, said they orally agreed to co-parent the children together.
Shortly after the children were born on May 18, 2005, Harrington petitioned Shawnee County District Court to sever Hendrix's parental rights. Hendrix countered by filing a paternity action. Both cases were dismissed in December 2005 by a district court judge. Hendrix then appealed to the Supreme Court, capturing the attention of legal scholars, donor rights advocates and media around the country.
Harrington didn't return phone calls from The Topeka Capital-Journal seeking her reaction to Friday's ruling. Her attorney, Susan Barker Andrews, also didn't return a phone call.
"I'm numb," Hendrix said after the ruling. "I'm in disbelief."
Hendrix, 47, said he has never been allowed to hold the boy and the girl who are now 2 1/2 years old.
"My heart is broken," he said. "Some day these children are going to know I'm their father. We're not finished."
The case was challenging for the Supreme Court because four justices removed themselves from the case. Those who didn't participate were former Justice Donald L. Allegrucci and current Justices Lawton R. Nuss, Marla J. Luckert and Eric Rosen.
Court of Appeals Judges Nancy Caplinger and Stephen Hill and former Justice Tyler C. Lockett were brought in to replace them.
Lockett and Justices Kay McFarland, Robert E. Davis and Carol A. Beier ruled to uphold the state's 1994 donor law. Caplinger and Hill dissented.
Beier authored the opinion for the majority, holding the law's requirement of a written agreement constitutional under both state and federal due process and equal protection provisions.
"All that is constitutional is not necessarily wise," she wrote. "We are mindful of, and moved by, advocacy for public policy to maximize the chance of the availability of two parents — and two parents' resources — to Kansas children. We are also aware of continued evolution in regulation of artificial insemination in this and other countries. However, weighing of the interests of all involved in these procedures, as well as the public policies that are furthered by favoring one or another in certain circumstances, is the charge of the Kansas Legislature, not of this court."
McFarland said the provision requiring written agreement "appears to be aimed at protecting both parties from unwanted duties and/or obligations being imposed without their consent in the very limited factual situation to which it applies."
In dissent, Caplinger said she would have found the law unconstitutional because the donor had a fundamental right to parent and the law's requirement of a written agreement resulted in a passive waiver of that right.
"Therein lies the constitutional problem," she said. "Fundamental rights must be actively waived, rather than passively lost to inaction."
Hill agreed the law was unconstitutional when applied to a known sperm donor. He also questioned whether the best interest of children born as a result of artificial insemination were being served by the statutory design.
Before the children were born, Hendrix said he asked Harrington if they needed to get something in writing. He said she told him it wasn't necessary.
"She committed fraud," he said. "She used me. She killed me."
Harrington said in her district court filings that Hendrix would be an unfit father.
But Hendrix said Friday that was far from the truth. He said he has a nephew and four nieces and is friends with many parents and their children.
"We're there for even our friends' children," said Hendrix, who lives with a male companion. "Money isn't everything, but I've had the same job (at Jostens) since 1983. I'm the marketing director at Reese & Nichols, I've had a successful decorating show. We have horses. I can be there for everything they need."