Ruling creates new class of parent

OLYMPIA – In a groundbreaking decision, the state Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that caregivers may have parental rights as a “de facto parent” even if there is no biological link to a child.

“In the face of advancing technologies and evolving notions of what comprises a family unit, this case causes us to confront the manner in which our state … defines the terms ‘parents’ and ‘families,’ ” wrote Justice Bobbe Bridge, writing for the 7-2 majority.

The court ruled that de facto parents can be – with court approval – put on a legal par with biological and adoptive parents.

The Washington court lifted standards from a similar case in Wisconsin as to who could be a de facto parent. Among them: the natural or legal parent must have consented to the original parenting relationship, the child must live in the same household, and sufficient time must be spent together for the child to bond with the de facto parent.

In a dissent, Justice Jim Johnson blasted the decision, saying that it will allow a non-parent to infringe on the rights of the child’s actual mother, who is a fit parent. The 10-year-old girl in the case, he said, “has become a battleground for this interpersonal and political debate.”

According to court documents, Sue Ellen Carvin, also known as “Mian,” became romantically involved with Page Britain in 1989. The two moved in together and in 1994 decided to conceive a child. A male friend was enlisted to provide sperm, Britain was artificially inseminated, and on May 19, 1995, a little girl – referred to in court records as “L.B.” – was born.

For the first six years of the girl’s life, the three lived together as a family, with the two women sharing parenting responsibilities. L.B. called Carvin “mama” and called Britain “mommy.”

In 2002 the women ended their relationship. Britain, according to court records, cut off Carvin’s contact with the girl. Although not a biological or adoptive parent, Carvin sued, saying that she should be granted visitation rights as a de facto parent. Severing her relationship with the girl, she said, would hurt the child.

Britain – who married the sperm donor in an apparent attempt to strengthen her legal case – said the state should not interfere with the decisions of a fit parent. Furthermore, she argued that allowing de facto parentage claims would open the door to custody bids by “teachers, nannies, parents of best friends … adult siblings, aunts, grandparents” and others.

The high court’s ruling affirms a May 2004 ruling by the state Court of Appeals, which said Carvin could seek parental rights. The three-judge panel found that while Carvin did not have standing under the state’s Uniform Parentage Act, she could seek status as a “de facto or psychological parent” by presenting evidence of a parent-child relationship.

The Supreme Court, which is also considering a landmark gay marriage case, remanded the case to a lower court to let Carvin argue that she is a de facto parent to L.B.

“Our legislature has been conspicuously silent when it comes to the rights of children like L.B. who are born into nontraditional families,” Justice Bridge wrote.

Eight groups, including advocates for lesbians and gays, adoptive parents and the American Civil Liberties Union, filed friend-of-the-court briefs in the case.

Justice Johnson, in his dissent, said the women’s sexual orientation should be irrelevant to the real issue in the case: “that a mother has a fundamental right to make decisions for her child.”

“I disagree with the majority’s resolution of this case and am saddened by the impact caused by this judicial rewrite of our parentage laws on this child,” Johnson wrote. “Poor little L.B.”