Liet Kynes ([info]calysto) wrote in [info]postqueer,
@ 2008-07-08 06:04:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend!  Next Entry
Lesbian Partner Financial Mess
A woman who had been in a committed relationship, living with another woman for fourteen years... having spent only 5 nights apart during those years... wanted to ensure her mate's financial security. Since they were barred from marriage, or even civil union, (in 1991) the woman legally adopted her mate. Unfortunately they ended their relationship a year later. A financial agreement was reached in the split but they vowed never to annul the adoption.

Turns out the woman who adopted her mate was the daughter of a man who controlled much of IBM. When he and his wife died they left a large amount of money to their grandchildren. The adopted mate of his lesbian daughter attempted to claim part of the inheritance as a granddaughter. The family contested the claim and a court annulled the adoption based on lack of residency in the state the adoption was filed in. They had to file in Maine, a state they vacationed in for several weeks every year, because their home state of New York wouldn't allow homosexuals to adopt their partners.

The ruling is being taken to a higher court.

[If your brain hasn't exploded yet, the article is here]

Now, to me, it's way wrong for the adoptee in this situation to claim part of the inheritance... but all this would have been avoided if gays and lesbians were granted the same rights as heterosexuals.

It's a mess of a story but it illustrates the lengths non-heteros must go to in an attempt to secure every-day rights which heterosexuals take for granted.

(Post a new comment)


[info]burnthatwitch
2008-07-08 11:57 am UTC (link)
I think my view on this might be unpopular and it is stemming from my identity not as a gay person, but as an adopted person.

I can't help but feel that adopting a partner for financial security is akin to marrying a parent for financial security.

As an adopted person, I wish to feel that I am as valid a daughter to my parents as my non-adopted sister, but that validity is challenged every time adoption is seen as a second-rate option or whenever someone expresses a preference for a biological child (I believe that the important stuff is in the mind, not the genes). This case presents a similar challenge.

Now, someone may have to fill me in about how civil unions potentially contribute to financial security, but what I can see in this article is a woman who was the daughter of one of the richest people of his time, who could afford to pay $500,000 for "certain real estate" - which implies that her partner owned more than one property. I'm not for a second saying that I believe she doesn't have the right to financial security and/or civil partnership, but surely, with these facts taken into consideration, there would be some way for her to ensure financial security without her needing to fabricate conditions in order to adopt her partner? It seems to me more likely that she was aware that grandchildren were due cash payouts when Thomas Watson passed away. Presumably, others in same-sex relationships in 1991 were managing without considering adopting one another, albeit with great difficulty for many. Is there a possibility that this was a greedy couple using gay activism as a cover?

My main concern about this is that it seems to trivialise the parent-child relationship which I consider to be absolutely necessary to adoption and which I believe should be socially strengthened to medicate the "primal wound" felt by adoptees when they're separated from their biological parents. I think this case shakes the important foundations of adoption.

(Reply to this)(Thread)

[info]burnthatwitch
2008-07-08 12:02 pm UTC (link)
"someone may have to fill me in about how civil unions potentially contribute to financial security"

Erm... just because I'm unsure of all the legal in's and out's of marriage and civil unions generally, not because I hate them or anything like that.

(Reply to this)(Parent)

[info]oblivxion
2008-07-08 02:00 pm UTC (link)
I fully agree with you, [info]burnthatwitch. Fully.

(Reply to this)(Parent)

[info]riverafire
2008-07-08 06:49 pm UTC (link)
"My main concern about this is that it seems to trivialise the parent-child relationship which I consider to be absolutely necessary to adoption and which I believe should be socially strengthened to medicate the 'primal wound' felt by adoptees when they're separated from their biological parents. I think this case shakes the important foundations of adoption."
This seems quite similar to arguments made in opposition to queer marriage. In both cases, I don't see how what anyone else does has any impact on the significance of another persons relationship. Your relationship with your adoptive family maintains it's relevance and importance regardless of what others do under the same laws, no? It seems to me that the most important point of "social strengthening" (your words) should happen inside the adoptive family and has little if anything to do with what is happening outside of the family unit.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

(Anonymous)
2008-07-08 08:09 pm UTC (link)
I feel as though you are trying to negate my view by relating it to something which I perceive to be a completely different issue (queer marriage) which, in the context of the community, could prevent others from taking my view seriously.

This is how I separate out adoption from queer marriage. They are not simply two familial issues, but rather, one stabilises a parent-child relationship, while the other, a romantic relationship. It is obviously regrettable that civil partnerships for same-sex couples are not globally legal, especially in countries where certain securities cannot be obtained by any other means. I don't think it's fair to imply that if I am opposed to romantic partners adopting one another, I should logically be opposed to queer marriage.

It might be easy to say that what is outside of the adoptive family unit is of little importance, but like any other minority group, that's simply not the case. For many, perhaps even most adoptees, the sociological meaning of adoption is absolutely inescapable, because we are interfered with on many social, legal and psychological levels. Socially, we are often seen as underprivileged or to be pitied. Legally, our families must follow screeds of rules and regulations, lest we be interrupted by keen-eyed social workers. Psychologically, our minor flaws or mental disturbances are written down to our adoptions, leaving real issues unaddressed. It can become a constant state of flux which requires detailed personal examination to come to terms with. In my own experience (and as I consequently found out, many others experiences), the outside view of adoption contradicted and impeded my childhood naivety about adoption more and more as I grew, hurting more and more, until I had to mentally shed a skin and figure out a way for the two to run alongside each other, in order to prevent myself from, yknow, going crazy.

It's not simply a way of forging any kind of link between two or three people. Like queer marriage, it has it's own flavour, it's own construction, it's own alienation and it's own continuous trivialisation by others. We can't write off how other people view us any more than a gay couple in Jamaica could say, "Let's get married right here!" We can't say that adoption maintains it's relevance and importance, regardless of others, any more than we can say the marriage of our Jamaican couple here maintains it's importance and relevance, regardless of others. Both are controlled by institutions outwith the relationship. I know that if for some reason, my own adoption was anulled, I wouldn't seek the rights to marry one of my parents in order to retain that familial, or even financial, bond. I have to admit that I don't have any answers for the people who have commented about having difficulties when their partner has been or might have been hospitalised and I sympathise with the difficulty of those situations. But in all other regards, I would focus on empowering people as individuals who can stand on two feet, and not just on one foot until they get married.

Marriage and adoption are different things, with different social implications that can't easily be ignored. I do believe that same-sex couples should have every right to legal civil partnerships but I also believe that the only real similarity between marriage and adoption is that they involve creating family. Beyond that, the branch splits off. Perhaps this final point is irrelevant, but I'm seriously doubtful that it would be technically legal for a couple to continue with a sexual relationship after one adopted the other.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

[info]burnthatwitch
2008-07-08 08:09 pm UTC (link)
...AND...

I didn't mean for that to be anonymous!

(Reply to this)(Parent)

[info]riverafire
2008-07-08 09:04 pm UTC (link)
"I don't think it's fair to imply that if I am opposed to romantic partners adopting one another, I should logically be opposed to queer marriage."
Nowhere in my original comment did I say this. I said it sounded similar to the same argument and made no assumptions about your views on gay marriage.
I agree with lots of what you have said in your response here. Maybe I was unclear in my original comment. While I understand that adoptive family relationships are often subject to outside interference, it seemed to me that in your original comment you implied that other forms of adoption trivialized the loving relationship that you share within your adoptive family. While I understand that administrative and legislative interference might strain family relationships, legislation is separate from the love and intimacy that people share within the family unit. I was just asking how someone adopting a gay partner affects meaning of adoption within your family, which is what I inferred from your original comment. While legal ramifications are relevant, they are still separate.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

[info]burnthatwitch
2008-07-08 10:31 pm UTC (link)
I'm sorry if I took your reply to mean something it didn't! I wanted to reiterate that I am not opposed to civil partnerships. I'm quite reluctant to talk about my own experience, mostly because I know it's only one experience. While I can't agree with someone in a relationship adopting their partner, I also wouldn't tell anyone what to do.
I suppose if I have to be more succinct, I'd just say that it seems to me that within a parent-child adoptive relationship, laws and rules and social workers are more entangled into the relationship than in a partner-partner adoptive relationship, where it seems to be "we're only doing this to get to this." In the former, there IS a tie between laws and love, whereas in the latter, the two are very much separate. Using my own experience purely for example, one of my parents literally postponed growing attached to me as a baby because at the time she was almost certain that there would be some kind of legal intervention in the years to come.
If someone was to adopt their partner while making clear that it was a very last resort and that they think it's insane that they should have to resort to such an action, I would find that less trivialising than if a couple did this for some kind of greedy financial gain. And perhaps it would help the move towards civil unions for same-sex couples progress.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

[info]burnthatwitch
2008-07-08 10:33 pm UTC (link)
And, because I can never comment just once *rolls eyes* I would have to say that if simple legal guardianship of a partner is an option, more people should use that option!

(Reply to this)(Parent)

[info]snowmoon3
2008-07-08 01:48 pm UTC (link)
adopting their partners? 1. why would anyone be allowed to adopt an adult? and 2. why would you want to legally be the parent of someone you're sleeping with?

(Reply to this)(Thread)

[info]tracker00
2008-07-08 01:51 pm UTC (link)
I was wondering this as well. The whole thing seems rather odd to me?!

(Reply to this)(Parent)

[info]oblivxion
2008-07-08 02:00 pm UTC (link)
I also agree here! I'm pretty sure that there are such things as adult adoption -- for example, to allow a kid with a step-parent or some such to choose to be adopted by their own volition as an adult -- but to #2, WTF?

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

[info]snowmoon3
2008-07-08 05:11 pm UTC (link)
In order to be adopted by a step parent, your biological parent has to give up custody of you. As an adult without a guardian, no one has custody of you to give up. I'm still confused.

(Reply to this)(Parent)

[info]epeolatry
2008-07-08 02:16 pm UTC (link)
i had the same questions.

(Reply to this)(Parent)
"Sitting Bears History Lesson"
[info]spencerlebear
2008-07-08 02:43 pm UTC (link)
.
Because back in the olden days there was no other way of getting legal familial access to your queer partner. Hospitals frequently shut queer partners out and wills/inheritance were easily challenged by money hungry relatics. It seems the whole purpose of this adoption was so that they could provide and care for each other in a world that didn't allow their relationship to be validated in any other legal way at the time. It was an even harder and more cruel world than one we live in now, we did whatever we could to take care of our partners.

Personally about ten years ago I thought long and hard about adopting my BF, so I would have a legal connection to him and our (his) daughter. I was screwed around a lot by some officious hospital staff when there was a problem during his top surgery and had anything happened to him, our daughter would have been totally in the hands of her father (who doesn't think much of me).

(Reply to this)(Parent)

[info]epilady
2008-07-08 05:17 pm UTC (link)
My mentor adopted his partner - they have been together almost 20 years now. About 15 years ago, they were in Colorado and D broke his ankle. The hospital staff would not allow J in to visit because he was "not family." They went directly back to SF and proceeded with adoption.

Recently, a woman in Florida died - without being allowed to see her wife and their kids - because of the bullshit "family only" policy. If that happened to me, I'd probably adopt my partner too.

(Reply to this)(Parent)

[info]fall_of_sophia
2008-07-08 05:28 pm UTC (link)
It happens. I can recall hearing quite a few stories about people being adopted while in prison, often after being Saved etc. I'd imagine that sometimes people just want to legally establish that a stepparent has always fulfilled that role in their lives. Legal paternity isn't the same as custody.

(Reply to this)(Parent)

[info]youngstudlyboi
2008-07-08 06:36 pm UTC (link)
If an adult is dependent for whatever reason, developmental or severe mental disability, etc., I can see how that *could* be grounds for adopting an adult- or at least becoming a legal guardian. But this isn't mentioned anywhere to my knowledge. As to your second question....well, that seems really odd to me as well.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

[info]snowmoon3
2008-07-08 09:06 pm UTC (link)
Even then, the adult would have a guardian but probably not an adoptive parent. There are several types of guardians - personal guardians, rogers guardians, guardians of estate, and rep payees. None of these guardianships fill a parental role and there are strict rules about what each type of guardian can and cannot do.

(Reply to this)(Parent)

[info]riverafire
2008-07-08 04:12 pm UTC (link)
Am I the only one here who takes exception at the op's use of the term "non-hetero"? It seems to center hetero as normative, in effect marginalizing all other expressions of sexuality.


Edited at 2008-07-08 04:15 pm UTC

(Reply to this)(Thread)

[info]snowmoon3
2008-07-08 05:14 pm UTC (link)
I don't understand why you're taking exception. In American society (which is where the story takes place), heterosexual marriages are normative and any other type of marriage is only legal in two states. Heterosexual couples who can get married don't need to resort to alternative umm...plans of action in order to ensure their rights.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

[info]riverafire
2008-07-08 05:59 pm UTC (link)
First of all, heterosexual marriage is normalized because it socially constructed to be so. Secondly, the specific section of text I have beef with is "It's a mess of a story but it illustrates the lengths non-heteros must go to in an attempt to secure every-day rights which heterosexuals take for granted." which is not referring specifically to marriage rights, but more generally to sexual orientation. In that context, I am bothered by the use of non-hetero. It simultaneously creates a false dichotomy (hetero vs. non-hetero) and discursively centers heterosexuality as the norm.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

[info]snowmoon3
2008-07-08 09:03 pm UTC (link)
I understood what you mean but I still don't understand why you take exception. I'd just be repeating myself to say anything further.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

[info]riverafire
2008-07-08 09:12 pm UTC (link)
see comment below

(Reply to this)(Parent)

[info]fall_of_sophia
2008-07-08 05:30 pm UTC (link)
well, heteronormativity is a reality, and that's exactly what i mean when i say "queer" so nah it doesn't bother me.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

[info]riverafire
2008-07-08 06:06 pm UTC (link)
I have no issue with queer. I identify as queer. I don't think queer is synonymous with "non-hetero". Non-hetero is problematic in that it rhetorically marginalizes queer people. My queerness has nothing to do with heterosexuals. "Non-hetero" suggests that queer identity can only exist in relation to heterosexuality.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

[info]snowmoon3
2008-07-08 09:04 pm UTC (link)
well, to be honest, if there were no heterosexuals then we wouldn't be considered queer.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)
what?!
[info]riverafire
2008-07-08 09:18 pm UTC (link)
That is only true to the extent that there would be no people if someone wasn't engaging in procreative sex (though arguably, technology could make up for that even). if there were no heterosexuals I would still be sexually attracted to women. Maybe it would have been clearer to say my sexuality has no relation to heterosexuality and this is why I find the articulation "non-hetero" troubling.
To be clear, I only id as queer for lack of a better word, but it is still an improvement over "non-hetero". I'm Black too, and I take exception to being referred to as non-white for similar reasons.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)
Re: what?!
[info]zanyassmask
2008-07-09 07:32 am UTC (link)
1) I agree that placing the 'non' emphasis on the minority is problematic.

2) is it possible that 'queer' in the equation above means something other than who you are attracted to? As a cultural identity I actually think it can be very much be in relation to / against the 'norm'--and purposely, proudly so (and I mean queer, not, say, gay).





(Reply to this)(Parent)
Re: what?!
[info]snowmoon3
2008-07-09 12:33 pm UTC (link)
no, if being heterosexual wasn't normative then not being heterosexual wouldn't be queer.

I'm not Christian but I don't take exception to being called non-Christian. I think this is something where we aren't going to agree.

(Reply to this)(Parent)

[info]zanyassmask
2008-07-08 05:58 pm UTC (link)
all this would have been avoided if gays and lesbians were granted the same rights as heterosexuals.

actually, all this would have been avoided if marriage / couplehood was not the only way we recognized families.




Edited at 2008-07-08 06:05 pm UTC

(Reply to this)(Thread)

[info]kommishoner
2008-07-08 09:45 pm UTC (link)
word.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

[info]kommishoner
2008-07-08 09:47 pm UTC (link)
which is not, of course, to say marriage is a bad thing, just that it shouldn't be the only thing, in my opinion. just to be clear.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

[info]zanyassmask
2008-07-09 03:38 am UTC (link)
breeder.

[um..j/k!]

Edited at 2008-07-09 07:26 am UTC

(Reply to this)(Parent)

[info]mingerspice
2008-07-11 03:04 am UTC (link)
Damn, this flame war was just getting started. :)

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

[info]kommishoner
2008-07-11 05:15 am UTC (link)
seriously. maybe i should be more imprecise in my language next time. it's been awhile since i got cussed out on the internet.

(Reply to this)(Parent)

[info]mingerspice
2008-07-11 03:03 am UTC (link)
Ugh this case sounds like some horrible law school hypo from hell.

I agree with her argument as presented in the article (that a court should not annul a longstanding adoption on a residency requirement technicality - imagine if you will the legal uncertainty this would cause for far too many adoptive children and parents), but that issue would not even have come up if she hadn't tried to claim part of this estate as a "grandchild" when she (presumably) knew that she was not regarded as such by anyone, homophobic or not, her ex-partner included, in that family.

(Reply to this)

Create an Account
Forgot your login?
Login w/ OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…