Ohio Supreme Court limits impact of gay marriage ban

The Ohio Supreme Court has let stand an appeals court ruling that said the state’s constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage cannot be used to terminate a child custody agreement between partners.

“The Court has expressly shut down arguments that Ohio’s antigay amendment impacts parenting and child custody relationships, rights, and responsibilities,” said Lambda Legal attorney Camilla Taylor.

Lambda represented Therese Leach in her fight to uphold a court-approved joint custody agreement signed by both her and her former partner, Denise Fairchild, the child’s birth mother.
The dispute over custody began in 2005 after the women ended their relationship.

After their son was born in 1996, both women parented him. In order to ensure that Leach had a protected legal relationship with the child, the two women signed a joint custody agreement. Such agreements were approved by the Ohio Supreme Court in 2001.

That same year, an Ohio court approved the joint custody agreement stating they would share custody.

After Leach and Fairchild broke up, Fairchild sought to terminate the custody agreement, citing the 2004 amendment to the Ohio constitution limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples.

In addition to banning same-sex marriage the amendment, known as Issue 1, says the state “and its political subdivisions shall not create or recognize a legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals that intends to approximate the design, qualities, significance or effect of marriage.”

Lawyers for Fairchild argued that the amendment extends to adoption.

The appeals court not only dismissed the case, it also said that Fairchild should never have been permitted to attack the enforceability of a shared custody agreement with Leach.

“The Court correctly declined an invitation to treat gay and lesbian Ohio parents differently from other families, and to deprive the children of these families of the protections and support other children receive,” said Taylor.

In upholding the appeals court ruling the state Supreme Court decision is the final word on the matter.