Now the NY Times reports:
It is hard to imagine anyone experiencing this more viscerally right now than a man named Jonathan Sporn, a 54-year-old pharmaceuticals executive living on the Upper West Side, who in a sense has fallen prey to a system that excessively privileges the conventional family models from which there seems to be a growing exodus.So the child only had one legal parent, and is now an orphan now that the parent is dead. Placement of the child is up to CPS, and they don't like Sporn.
According to a custody petition Dr. Sporn filed in Manhattan Supreme Court last month, he and his girlfriend, Leann Leutner, had a baby boy — Lincoln Amory Aurelian Sporn Leutner — last July, with the help of in vitro fertilization. The couple had issues conceiving but found success with the use of an anonymous sperm donor. Dr. Sporn and Ms. Leutner, both of whom had divorced previous partners, were not married. But they had lived together since 2010 and were deeply committed to starting a family.
Then in mid-December, Ms. Leutner, a lawyer at Simpson Thacher & Bartlett, left with Lincoln for New Jersey, where a few days before the end of the year she got a new apartment. On New Year’s Day, she committed suicide.
But from the perspective of the law, a parent in Dr. Sporn’s situation is effectively not a parent at all. He was not married to Lincoln’s mother. He has no blood relationship to the child. And he did not take steps to legally adopt him after his birth.The law certainly should not "reflexively recognize the role you have played". There are reasons that the law has marriage licenses, birth certificates, and adoption orders. That is how parents are legally recognized. We do not have laws that say that parental rights stem from changing diapers, or else some nannies might be acquiring parental rights.
The law doesn’t reflexively recognize the role you have played, or the obvious parental intent that attaches to anyone who has gone to the trouble to have a child with assisted reproductive technology, or the number of times you’ve performed 3 a.m. feedings.
But there is still much ground to be covered. We’re watching “Modern Family,” but certain dimensions of the legal system have yet to change the channel from the era of black and white.I guess this is a reference to Ozzie and Harriet being in black and white. There is "still much ground to be covered" because the NY Times liberals have not yet destroyed the family.
The article acts as if our legal system needs to catch up to TV sitcoms, but the parents on Modern Family are legal parents. The NY Times leftists seem to want govt agencies to assign parental responsibilities based on their own opinions and prejudices.
This is crazy. Why is a suicidal husband-ditch woman getting an IVF sperm donor? Why didn't she marry Sporn or get him to adopt the child? Did she even leave a will explaining her intentions?
We cannot make a society that depends on CPS making good decisions. What did Dr. Sporn think would happen? I don't know what he is a doctor of, but he should have known that he was living with a suicidal woman and a child that had no legal connection to him.
You can count on the anti-family propagandists to keep bringing up examples like this as excuses for destroying the Ozzie-and-Harriet American family.
On another matter, here is the sick advice that the NY Times gives to a man considering sex-change operation:
I recently had my self-diagnosis confirmed, and I’m initiating a transition to living as the real me. There is a cost involved: pain to my family and stress on my career. Ethically, is it right to be “true to myself” even if that authenticity ends my otherwise happy marriage and damages the emotional stability of my three children? ...No, the desire is certainly selfish. But he is not just being true to himself, or he would not be so desperate to get ideas endorsed by others.
The desire to be yourself is not a selfish impulse. ... So the question you really need to ask yourself is this: Is your psychological damage from gender dysphoria greater than the psychological damage that its restoration will inflict upon the lives of any (or all) of your children? If the answer is yes, proceed. If the answer is no, don’t do it.