Christina is a lesbian who married Kimberly Strickland Day back in 2009 in Massachusetts. While the two were married, they decided to have a child together. Kimberly became pregnant using an anonymous sperm donor – Donor No. 2687.
After six years together, Christina and Kimberly separated, and Christina was told that she could no longer see her son, Z.S. She sought out custody. However, it seems that the lower courts of Mississippi don’t know what it means to be a parent.
The court ruled that Christina would have to pay child support and could have visitation rights, but was not legally Z.S’s parent.
“The court finds two women cannot conceive a child together,” court judge John Grant said in his ridiculous ruling. “The court doesn’t find its opinion to be a discriminatory statement, but a biological fact.”
Clearly, this judge thinks that conceiving a child is the same as being a parent. I wonder what he would say to someone who adopted a child, or a father who is raising another man's child?
In sperm donor cases for opposite-sex couples, Mississippi presumes the husband to be the legal father of the child, not the person who donated the genetic material. This is clearly not the case when two women use a sperm donor. This is why Christina and her Lawyer are taking this case to the state supreme court.
Birth certificates aren’t about listing the biological parents of a child. If that were the case, all men would have to have a DNA test before being listed as a parent. Instead, a birth certificate is about listing those who are going to act as the baby’s parents. What's more, in many cases, a birth certificate has nothing to do with the legal parents of a child.
Given that Christina was married to Kimberly at the time it’s clear she planned to act as the Z.S.’s legal parent. She hasn’t even complained about having to pay for child support!
(Image: iStock / DGLimages)