Michigan Supreme Court’s Big Parenting Decision

When it comes to protecting parent-child relationships, Michigan law has some serious problems. Outdated parentage statutes have led to the state Supreme Court considering this week whether another child will be denied a relationship with one of their parents. Our legislators should act now to update state parentage laws to ensure all children and families can have the legal security and stability they need.  

Over the last few years, several court cases in the state have highlighted a number of holes in protections for children. Grand Rapids couple Tammy and Jorden Myers made international headlines in 2021 when they had to adopt their own children born via a gestational carrier, because of the state’s antiquated 1988 Surrogate Parenting Act. Earlier this year, the couple were finally granted full legal parentage of their now-two year old son and daughter.

Children living in the vulnerability of legal limbo for two years -- that is terrifying. 

In another heartbreaking case, Lanesha Matthews and Kyresha LeFever had twins together before same-sex marriage was legal in Michigan. Ms. LeFever was the genetic mother, and Ms. Matthews was the birth mother thanks to advances in fertility healthcare. After co-parenting their children for a number of years, the couple separated, and a protracted battle began over whether Ms. Matthews’ should be stripped of her legal parentage and her name removed from the birth certificate. A lower court ruled that Ms. Matthew’s acted as a surrogate to her own children. Thankfully, in 2021 the Michigan Court of Appeals overturned that ruling and appropriately concluded that Ms. Matthews was an equal legal parent. 

And now, this week, oral arguments are taking place in the Michigan Supreme Court in Pueblo v Haas. In 2008, the lesbian couple had a child together when same- sex marriage was prohibited in our state and there was no way for this family to secure their child under our state statutes. When the couple separated Ms. Haas, the biological parent who had carried the pregnancy, denied Ms. Pueblo all contact with their child. Ms. Pueblo sought shared custody, but both the trial court and the Michigan Court of Appeals ruled that she was not a parent to her child.  We’re hopeful that the Michigan Supreme Court will finally ensure that this child’s relationships to each of their parents is secure.

 The tragedy of these cases, as well as numerous others that don’t make headlines, is that they have all required prolonged, painful litigation.  Children and families in our state shouldn’t face the fear of losing these precious family relationships.  There is an urgent need to update parentage and surrogacy laws in the Great Lakes state for children born through assisted reproduction and surrogacy.  Every family should have equal access to secure parent-child relationships from birth.  This stability is so important to children, to families, and to our communities. 

 We know Michigan can do better.  Recognizing that abruptly severing family relationships has devastating impacts on the well-being of children, many states—from Maine to New Mexico, and Nevada to North Dakota—have updated their assisted reproduction statutes to protect children. 

 At stake in the case being heard on April 4 are several important rights for LGBTQ families in Michigan including the rights to form families, become parents, and raise children. We at Michigan Fertility Alliance firmly believe that the Michigan Supreme Court should protect and uphold those rights. 

 

But Michigan can and must also join other states in providing a comprehensive legal framework that supports the full diversity of families in our state, protects the interests of all parties involved, and ensures that children born through surrogacy and other forms of assisted reproduction have legally protected parent-child relationships. 

 

--Stephanie Jones, founder and Ginanne Brownell, media liaison

 

 

 

 

Previous
Previous

Detroit Moms: Surrogacy in Michigan

Next
Next

Does your insurance cover IVF? Probably not…