Domestic Partnership News Archive
November 01 - November 06, 2000

November 3, 2000

Same sex partners can make good parents

A story published today by Fox News reports that the rationale of many states for denying joint adoption rights to same-sex couples -- that they will not make good parents and will have an adverse effect on the child's development -- is untrue, according to a new study.

Actually, children thrive in same-sex families, concludes one Yale psychiatrist after reviewing more than 30 years' of research.

"Same-sex adoption does not generally have any significant detrimental effects on a child's development and can, in fact, add to a child's emotional and financial security," says Scott V. DiBartolo, MD, a researcher with the Yale University Child Study Center. He presented his findings at a recent meeting of child psychiatrists in New York.

DiBartolo's research included many aspects of same-sex parenting: effects on the child's peer relations; relations with adults of both sexes; gender identity; sexual orientation; and psychological, social, and moral development. He also looked at incidence of sexual abuse among gays and lesbians, and differences in emotional and financial security that come with being the adoptive child of one rather than two parents.

"Allowing for same-sex adoption would be in the best interest of the child," concludes DiBartolo.

"I absolutely agree," says Nadine Kaslow, PhD, professor and chief psychologist at Emory University School of Medicine in Atlanta. "I think the most important thing for a child is to be in a loving, nurturing, warm, and stable family environment whether it's a heterosexual family, grandparents, an extended family, or a same-sex couples ... Many same-sex couples are very stable. Good relationships are good relationships, and the good ones are stable, committed, and those people make very good parents."

Do same-sex couples affect the child's gender identity or sexual orientation? "No one knows," Kaslow tells WebMD. "Nobody really knows what multiple factors go into that and whether it's different for boys than girls. ...In terms of social, moral, and psychological development, what's more important is the quality of the attachments, the quality of parents' psychological well-being, and the quality of the home life that's created."

In raising any child, says Kaslow, "it's important for children to have multiple role models in addition to the parents. If the parents aren't interested in sports or the arts or whatever, it helps to get role models who are. For example, "lesbian couples may want to have male role models," she says.

When partners are not allowed to adopt, "it creates huge problems," says Lynne Z. Gold-Bikin, Esq., past chair of the American Bar Association's Family Law Section. "What rights does the partner have to take the kid to the hospital if there's an emergency? He's not the legal parent; he can't go in with the child. We have the same problem with grandparents taking care of kids."

When it comes to state laws that prohibit joint adoptions by unmarried couples, Gold-Bikin cites homophobia as the crux of the problem. "Look at the statistics: 90 percent of homosexual children are raised by heterosexual parents, their natural parents. It's based on a religious concept that there's something wrong with homosexuality in the first place."

California gives lesbian co-parent a tax break as head of household

A story published today in the Sacramento Bee reports that a California tax board has ruled that a lesbian supporting a child conceived by her partner through artificial insemination can file as head of household on her state income tax return.

Wednesday's decision by the state Board of Equalization means a savings of about $1,000 a year in state taxes for Helmi Hisserich, a 37-year-old economic development consultant in Los Angeles.

Married couples in California can claim "joint filing status." The head-of-household status is for unmarried taxpayers who are supporting dependent family members who are related to the taxpayer by blood, through adoption, or as in-laws.   

Hisserich pursued the appeal over three years after being told by the Franchise Tax Board that she didn't qualify for the filing status because she had no legal or biological connection to the child. She has tried unsuccessfully to adopt the girl.

Hisserich and her longtime partner, Tori Patterson, decided to have the child through artificial insemination and agreed that Hisserich would be the primary breadwinner for the first few years "so there would be a parent at home," Hisserich said.

Hisserich almost gave up after the first rejection by the Franchise Tax Board, but was rankled by the attitude of one attorney who she says told her, "You can't claim your friend's child as your own." She decided to appeal to the Board of Equalization.

Two tax board members issued a dissenting opinion, saying the decision has no basis in long-established tax law and will promote a public policy that discourages marriage and legal adoption. They cited a memo from the board's chief counsel that raises the possibility that other groups of taxpayers may also lay claim to the filing status, resulting in confusion, litigation and $15 million a year in lost revenue.

Board members Johan Klehs, John Chiang and state Controller Kathleen Connell voted in favor.

Klehs said it was clear that the 3-year-old girl was Hisserich's child, even though there are no biological or legal ties, and that Hisserich had earned the head-of-household status.   It was Hisserich's intention to be a parent, and the joint planning for the artificial insemination of her partner, which caused the board to rule that Hisserich was the child's parent.

The ruling would seem to apply to a heterosexual couple who became parents through the artificial insemination of the female partner.

The decision will become final in 30 days unless appealed by the Franchise Tax Board. Because it was published as a formal opinion, it serves as precedent for other taxpayers and the Franchise Tax Board.

Bill Steiner, a spokesman for the Internal Revenue Service in Sacramento, said federal statute currently would not allow someone in Hisserich's position to file as head of household on federal tax returns.

November 2, 2000

Court overturns Cambridge domestic partnership ordinance

A story published today by the Associated Press reports that a Massachusetts Superior Court judge on Thursday struck down the city of Cambridge ordinance that gave gay workers and their partners the same health
insurance and benefits as married heterosexual counterparts.

Middlesex Superior Court Judge James F. McHugh on Thursday ordered the city to stop paying for those benefits as of Jan. 31, 2001, saying that the ordinance went beyond what is allowed under state law.

Cambridge was the first city in the state and the 19th in the country to adopt a so-called domestic partnership ordinance.

Vincent McCarthy, senior northeast counsel for the American Center for Law and Justice, which went to court on behalf of 12 Cambridge residents to protest the ordinance, called the judge's decision ''an important victory for the marriage and family.''

According to the ruling, 71 individuals were receiving benefits under the ordinance as of April 19 at an annual cost of about $2,790 per recipient.

''Although the action the city took was improper, it took that action in an effort to provide a better life for those who daily serve its citizens,'' McHugh wrote. He added, ''The fact that those benefits may equal the benefits that the city provides its married employees may say something, at least inferentially, about equality.

''It says nothing about marriage,'' McHugh wrote.

In July 1999, the state Supreme Judicial Court struck down an executive order issued by Boston Mayor Thomas Menino that was intended to give health insurance coverage to gay and heterosexual partners of unmarried city workers.

In that case, the SJC rejected arguments that the state law, enacted in 1955 with a major amendment in 1967, could be construed loosely enough to allow the city to extend benefits to unmarried domestic partners and their dependents.

The high court said the Legislature had ''precisely defined the scope'' of who could be covered as: spouses, unmarried children under 19, and some older children in limited circumstances. It is up to the Legislature, the court ruled, to decide if the law should be changed to allow health benefits to be extended to others.