FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

September 25, 2000

Court Rules in Favor of Lesbian Mother in Visitation Dispute with Ex

Rhode Island Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Lesbian Mother in Visitation Dispute with Ex-Partner

Today the Rhode Island Supreme Court ruled in favor of a lesbian co-parent who had sought the assistance of the Family Court in resolving issues of visitation rights with the child she had raised with her former partner, the biological parent of their son.

  In a 3-2 decision, the Court ruled that the Family Courts of Rhode Island have the power to hear claims raised by defacto parents and to determine the interests of children born to unmarried couples.  Mary L. Bonauto, an attorney at Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders (GLAD) which filed a friend of the court brief for Rubano on behalf of a wide variety of civil rights and child’s rights organizations in Rhode Island stated, “This is a win for the children of Rhode Island who now know that custody and visitation disputes can be sorted out in court according to what is in their best interests.”

  Rubano and the child’s birth mother, Concetta DiCenzo, had jointly decided to have a child.  Rubano’s name appeared on his baptismal certificate, and they used their hyphenated names as his surname.  Birth announcements sent out by the couple identified both women as the child’s parents.  Rubano helped to raise and nurture the child for four years before the couple separated.  Although visitation continued for about a year after the separation,  it became erratic.  When DiCenzo refused any further contact between Rubano and the child, Rubano went to court.  The parties then entered into a visitation agreement which became a court order.  When DiCenzo changed her mind and sought to nullify the agreement, the Chief Judge of the Family Court asked the Supreme Court for guidance about the role of the courts in these matters.

  Bonauto, whose group has been involved with similar cases in the New England region, noted, “This decision brings Rhode Island in line with other states.  The court house door is open to those who are de facto parents.”  According to the court, when a person can show that he or she (1)  lived with a child, (2) that the other parent consented to and fostered a parent-child relationship between the two, (3) the de facto parent assumed the burdens of parenthood, and (4) the de facto parent and child in fact had a parent-child bond, then the court has jurisdiction to sort out visitation claims.  The Court specifically excluded neighbors, caretakers, baby sitters, nannies, au pairs, nonparental relatives and family friends from satisfying this test.

  The Court majority also specifically agreed with the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision of Troxel v. Granville that “demographic changes of the past century make it difficult to speak of an average American family.”  According to the Rhode Island Court, where the factors for de facto parenthood are met, the biological parent cannot play any trump card based on biology or adoption, and instead the dispute becomes a garden variety visitation contest between parents.

  GLAD’s amici curiae brief, authored by Bonauto, David Hobbie and Providence attorney Donna Nesselbush, was joined by the Rhode Island Chapter of the National Association of Social Workers, Jewish Family Service, Children’s Friend and Service, Rhode Island State Council of Churches, Rhode Island Alliance for Lesbian and Gay Civil Rights, Ocean State Action, Rhode Island Affiliate of the ACLU, Youth Pride, Inc., Rhode Island Coalition Against Domestic Violence, and YWCA of Northern Rhode Island.

  Founded in 1978, GLAD is New England’s leading legal rights organization for lesbians, gay men, bisexuals, and people with HIV/AIDS.  GLAD’s mission is to achieve equality and justice under law through litigation and public education.

Rubano v. DiCenzo, Rhode Island Supreme Court, No. P97-398M