The Wisdom of Solomon: How Remaking the Family Hurts Childre
BreakPoint with Charles Colson
Commentary #040811 - 08/11/2004
The Wisdom of Solomon: How Remaking the Family Hurts Children
In the July 25 issue of the NEW YORK TIMES MAGAZINE, Peggy Orenstein told the
story of two little girls who might never see their mother again. That's because
their "other mother," as Orenstein puts it, took them across the country and is
keeping contact to a minimum.
Read carefully: This gets confusing. The two women, identified only as K. and
E., were "domestic partners" living in California when they decided to have
children. K. supplied the eggs, but E. gave birth to the twin girls. (Their
father -- not that anyone's interested -- was an anonymous sperm donor.) As the
clinic required, K. signed a form waiving her rights to the eggs. But they
raised the girls together for years, and both of them considered themselves the
girls' mothers.
That's what K. says, anyway. E. denies that she thought of K. as a "co-parent,"
and when K. wanted the girls to know she was their genetic parent; E. felt
threatened. Their eventual breakup was caused by what the article calls "the
struggle to stake out their motherhood." Okay, no surprise.
E. moved the girls to Massachusetts; K. sued for joint custody and lost.
Although she had signed away her legal rights when she donated the eggs, she
hoped the court would take into account the concept of "psychological
parenthood." Some states do that, but not California.
Many people believe that if only the meaning of marriage changed, things like
this wouldn't happen. K.'s lawyer, for example, said, "That [egg donation] form
would never have been used for a married couple." Of course, California and
Massachusetts already have some of the county's most liberal marriage laws. K.
could have legally adopted the twins, but her partner didn't want her to.
The truth is that if the government were more lenient about who can claim
parental rights, things would soon get, if possible, even more confusing.
Orenstein writes of another mind-boggling California case: "[A] couple used a
donor egg and donor sperm to create an embryo that was then gestated by a
surrogate. One month before the baby was born, the couple split up, and the
husband refused responsibility for the child. A lower court found that the
[baby] girl . . . had no parents whatsoever. (The decision was later overturned,
and the divorcing couple were declared her mother and father.)"
How could you possibly create laws to deal with such a monstrosity? Throw in
legal recognition of "psychological parenthood," which can be used for people
who are not even involved in the conception or birth, and you would really have
a mess.
On the last page of her article, Orenstein points out, "It is, of course, the
children's voices that are missing from this debate." And how. No matter how
strongly K. and E. feel for these girls, they guaranteed that the girls would
not have a dad, could not agree on whose children they actually were, and took
away the only family they have ever known. Their decisions were all about
themselves.
I'm reminded of the familiar biblical story of Solomon. He knew that a child's
real mother was the one who wanted what was best for the child. Sadly, if that
is the case, an increasing number of children today are finding themselves
without any real parents at all.
Originally published August 26, 2004.
