Unfortunately, there are many states that still do not protect LGBTA parents. For example, some states don’t allow for them to even visit their children if their “legal guardian” says they can’t see them. Moreover, other states don’t allow them to file for custody, but they allow them to be declared a “de-facto parent.” This is a legal position that provides them with visitation rights, however, they are not granted full parentage. Before Partanen brought her case to the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, the state followed the de-facto parent practice. The court ended up ruling that even though the Massachusetts paternity laws are written in gendered terms, they can be discussed in a gender mutual manner — meaning it can apply to a child is that is born to any two people — even if only one parent has biological ties to the child. Therefore, Partanen can now legally fight for joint-custody of her children. Although this is a big achievement for Partanen and the state of Massachusetts, this is only a stepping stone for LGBTA parental rights as a whole. Various states around the country have started to enact laws that protect same-sex partners that are looking for parental rights, but many states continue to be restrictive. Therefore, there is still progress to be made in the United States (Randazzo, WSJ). The biggest influence that shaped Partanen’s legal issue and slows the progression of this law are conservative, social-cultural views. Typical opponents of this issue are those that are against LGTBA rights in general. Their opposition may come from their religious beliefs, the way their parents raised them, or for other reasons. Other opponents argue “that expanding the definition of parent to be too broad can open courts up to bogus custody challenges and expose parents to legal battles with exes that aren’t in the best interests of children” (Randazzo, WSJ). Regardless of where their opposition stems from, the lack of parental rights for LGBTA individuals significantly alters a child’s life as it mean
Unfortunately, there are many states that still do not protect LGBTA parents. For example, some states don’t allow for them to even visit their children if their “legal guardian” says they can’t see them. Moreover, other states don’t allow them to file for custody, but they allow them to be declared a “de-facto parent.” This is a legal position that provides them with visitation rights, however, they are not granted full parentage. Before Partanen brought her case to the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, the state followed the de-facto parent practice. The court ended up ruling that even though the Massachusetts paternity laws are written in gendered terms, they can be discussed in a gender mutual manner — meaning it can apply to a child is that is born to any two people — even if only one parent has biological ties to the child. Therefore, Partanen can now legally fight for joint-custody of her children. Although this is a big achievement for Partanen and the state of Massachusetts, this is only a stepping stone for LGBTA parental rights as a whole. Various states around the country have started to enact laws that protect same-sex partners that are looking for parental rights, but many states continue to be restrictive. Therefore, there is still progress to be made in the United States (Randazzo, WSJ). The biggest influence that shaped Partanen’s legal issue and slows the progression of this law are conservative, social-cultural views. Typical opponents of this issue are those that are against LGTBA rights in general. Their opposition may come from their religious beliefs, the way their parents raised them, or for other reasons. Other opponents argue “that expanding the definition of parent to be too broad can open courts up to bogus custody challenges and expose parents to legal battles with exes that aren’t in the best interests of children” (Randazzo, WSJ). Regardless of where their opposition stems from, the lack of parental rights for LGBTA individuals significantly alters a child’s life as it mean