E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSMIAMI - A Florida judge has approved the adoption of a 22-month-old baby girl that will list three people as parents on her birth certificate -- a married lesbian couple and a gay man.
The decision ends a two-year paternity fight between the couple and a friend of the women who donated his sperm to father the child but later sought a larger role in the girl's life.
The ruling means the child's birth certificate will include a biological father and both women as parents in an unusual arrangement approved recently by a Miami-Dade Circuit Court judge.
The women, Maria Italiano, 43, and Cher Filippazzo, 38, had made several unsuccessful attempts to become parents using fertility clinics.
They then turned to Italiano's hair dresser, Massimiliano Gerina, and asked if he would provide his sperm for artificial insemination.
"When push came to shove, they figured he would understand the situation," said Kenneth Kaplan, an attorney for the women.
"The mistake they made, however, was there should have been a written document spelling out what his rights and responsibilities were going to be."
According to Filippazzo, the three reached a verbal agreement before Italiano became pregnant. Filipazzo said the agreement meant she would adopt the baby and the two women, a longtime couple, would raise the child together.
But shortly before the baby was born, Gerina decided he wanted to be considered a parent and not a sperm donor. The women disagreed. Under Florida law, sperm donors have no legal rights to children.
Gerina hired a lawyer, setting off nearly two years of legal wrangling.
Under the judge's decision, the two women will have sole parental rights, although Gerina will be allowed to visit the child. He will not be expected to provide child support.
"We're trying to do the right thing for Emma," Filippazzo said. "We want Emma to have it all, and we believe by doing it this way, including him in a birthday or Thanksgiving, it'll be a nice addition for her."
"We believe the best interest for Emma is for him to have a role in her life, but not as a parent," she said. "The role is this is mommy's good friend who helped your moms have you because they wanted you so badly."
Copyright 2013 Thomson Reuters. Click for restrictions.
Leave a Comment:
Unbelievable follow up on Miami TV News... read it here on CBS Miami 4... ANOTHER CHILD!!???
http://miami.cbslocal.com/2013/02/06/m-d-judge-gay-man-married-lesbians-are-babys-parents/
The judge is as dotty as the ''three parents''...but then, what judge isn't today?
Johnny..I asked you to bring only one parent here today...who are all these people.
Well, the blonde with the big boobs is my mother and the redhead with small boobs and fat azz is my mother too..the guy in the pink dress is my dad.
Gay rights: the ultimate oxymoron, but a dangerous one. From three gays adopting one child, to changing the Webster‘s dictionary, to gay and lesbian curriculum in our elementary schools, to marriage, and way beyond, the encroachment of the gay movement upon our lives is a threat to all Americans, and it‘s time we say enough is enough.
They want more rights? Any legal considerations to grant homosexuals or any other behavior-based group of people any rights other than those we all share under the provisions of the United States Constitution lacks any prima facie basis to do so and therefore would be a mockery of law. We must protect and uphold the Constitution. Nowhere in our Constitution have I read the words “because of the way you choose to behave.” If gays are given “equal rights” because they choose to sodomize one another, if not imprudent and immoral by it‘s very nature, it will be a serious abortion of our system of law, and a true perversion of common sense and right and wrong. Such legislation was unheard of even ten years ago because common sense was still a compelling factor in our great country, and lawmakers recognized such unprecedented legislation jeopardized the welfare of the American society. Gay rights will open the door and give a voice for other miscreants. No legislature is obliged to recognize, or tolerate someone else’s behavior, especially one that is deemed unnatural and perverse by so many. But we see a few states have already sacrificed their moral values upon the altar of moral relativism and granted gays the right to marriage. Too many fail to realize disapproval is not bigotry, intolerance is not hate, and common sense and decency are not homophobic. Gays have the right to protest and demand anything they want to, and we have the right to disapprove. It’s called freedom, not discrimination.
A classic technique of the gay community is to vilify us for our disapproval. While portraying themselves as victims of bigotry and unfairness, gays disrespect time-honored mores and go to any length to invalidate and trivialize the feelings of the American majority. Gay marriage, for instance, does little for the benefit of our society as a whole, and it will risk establishing a dangerous civil precedence. The gay rights movement could care less that marriage- the central force in transmitting civilization- has always been reserved for men and women. Gay marriage is the new flagship of liberalism, floating upon an ocean of narcissism, but offers nothing to the American people, except chaos and confusion. To quote Irving Kristol: “liberalism aims simultaneously at political and social collectivism on the one hand, and moral anarchy on the other. It cannot win, but it can make us all losers.”
Gays have made what should be a matter of private conduct into a public nuisance. And although they are powered by the liberal media’s love affair with all things gay, the gay’s myopic quest for rights still lacks merit. Unlike the civil rights movement, women‘s rights, etc., the gay rights movement lacks validity in comparison. African-Americans were granted equal rights based upon the color of their skin, gays want rights for what they do in bed. “But, it's how we were born!" and "it's not a behavior it‘s an orientation", says the gay. True or not, and I believe these claims are pure nonsense, this is irrelevant, it‘s still a behavior. Contrary to the outrageous assertions by gays that homosexuality exists in nature, it still remains an irrefutable fact that heterosexuality is the universal sexual behavior of all life on this planet, homosexuality is an unnatural behavior, an anomaly, and a fact of nature homosexuals refuse to accept. No extra rights, no marriage license, deal with it.
Substitute Jew for gay in your rant and see who you sound like. Heil!
forgot the SIEG! Kathy (of course, lest we forget, der Fuehrer didn't like GAYS either - they had pink triangles in the concentration camps)
Gay rights: the ultimate oxymoron, but a dangerous one. From three gays adopting one child, to changing the Webster‘s dictionary, to gay and lesbian curriculum in our elementary schools, to marriage, and way beyond, the encroachment of the gay movement upon our lives is a threat to all Americans, and it‘s time we say enough is enough.
They want more rights? Any legal considerations to grant homosexuals or any other behavior-based group of people any rights other than those we all share under the provisions of the United States Constitution lacks any prima facie basis to do so and therefore would be a mockery of law. We must protect and uphold the Constitution. Nowhere in our Constitution have I read the words “because of the way you choose to behave.” If gays are given “equal rights” because they choose to sodomize one another, if not imprudent and immoral by it‘s very nature, it will be a serious abortion of our system of law, and a true perversion of common sense and right and wrong. Such legislation was unheard of even ten years ago because common sense was still a compelling factor in our great country, and lawmakers recognized such unprecedented legislation jeopardized the welfare of the American society. Gay rights will open the door and give a voice for other miscreants. No legislature is obliged to recognize, or tolerate someone else’s behavior, especially one that is deemed unnatural and perverse by so many. But we see a few states have already sacrificed their moral values upon the altar of moral relativism and granted gays the right to marriage. Too many fail to realize disapproval is not bigotry, intolerance is not hate, and common sense and decency are not homophobic. Gays have the right to protest and demand anything they want to, and we have the right to disapprove. It’s called freedom, not discrimination.
A classic technique of the gay community is to vilify us for our disapproval. While portraying themselves as victims of bigotry and unfairness, gays disrespect time-honored mores and go to any length to invalidate and trivialize the feelings of the American majority. Gay marriage, for instance, does little for the benefit of our society as a whole, and it will risk establishing a dangerous civil precedence. The gay rights movement could care less that marriage- the central force in transmitting civilization- has always been reserved for men and women. Gay marriage is the new flagship of liberalism, floating upon an ocean of narcissism, but offers nothing to the American people, except chaos and confusion. To quote Irving Kristol: “liberalism aims simultaneously at political and social collectivism on the one hand, and moral anarchy on the other. It cannot win, but it can make us all losers.”
Gays have made what should be a matter of private conduct into a public nuisance. And although they are powered by the liberal media’s love affair with all things gay, the gay’s myopic quest for rights still lacks merit. Unlike the civil rights movement, women‘s rights, etc., the gay rights movement lacks validity in comparison. African-Americans were granted equal rights based upon the color of their skin, gays want rights for what they do in bed. “But, it's how we were born!" and "it's not a behavior it‘s an orientation", says the gay. True or not, and I believe these claims are pure nonsense, this is irrelevant, it‘s still a behavior. Contrary to the outrageous assertions by gays that homosexuality exists in nature, it still remains an irrefutable fact that heterosexuality is the universal sexual behavior of all life on this planet, homosexuality is an unnatural behavior, an anomaly, and a fact of nature homosexuals refuse to accept. No extra rights, no marriage license, deal with it.
How does this little girl having three parents to love and watch over as she grows up a threat to you at all?
What extra rights do they want that you don't have?
Its an irrefutable fact that homosexuality exists in other species, that is nature deal with it. BTW, I have seen two male dogs go at it before so I know that exists.
http://www.news-medical.net/news/2006/10/23/20718.aspx
Catfish-
How are equal rights more rights?
didn't you post this cut and paste BULLS HIT before catfish? Reported for serial spamming
???
Rediculous - birth certificates should only list biological parents - you need that info for possible medical info later in life - anyone not genetically linked to the child shouldn't be on there - period.
How is it ridiculous, when a child is adopted the birth certificate is changed to reflect the adoptive parents. This is not a new practice it has always been done that way.
that's not why the BC exists. It's a legal document to say that someone came into existence (as in BORN", not "conceived") on a certain date to these "parents". Although generally convenient as a DNA trace, that's not the raison d'etre.
What could possibly go wrong?
Agree with the judge in this case. On behalf of someone close and countless others who are a growing movement of donor conception is not fertility treatment. He is the father as much as he would have been if conceived naturally, or adopted, or separated at birth by terrible accident, or had decided to run off with another woman, and never see the child or mother again, or if he had died before being born. Calling a man who provides his sperm to create a child a "sperm donor" clouds the issue. Donor-conception is the loss of a parent from a child's life. It is understandable, then, that the child will have a human need to grieve the loss of this parent like he or she would grieve any other situation where they are not being raised by the biological father.
Judge made a good start in changing laws to be more like those in Britain, Norway, Sweden and end the anonymous trade of sperm. Doing so would powerfully affirm that as a nation we no longer tolerate the creation of two classes of children, one actively denied by the state knowledge of their biological fathers, and the rest who the state believes should have the care and protection of legal fathers, such that the state will even track these men down and dock child support payments from their paychecks.
Yeah, but you do, your post proves it. You are a tight-ass bigot. Just because they are gay, and not Heteros doesn't' mean they shouldn't have children, I would rather see children brought up in a loving environment, whether straight or gay, than in an abusive straight family. But I'm guessing you don't think that way...right
Btw...does any one remember Mary Jo Whitehead. She was a surrogate, the "parents" where straight, where was the outrage then?
LOL. I know Gomer, just like those hillbilly's that think a goat is an okay sexual partner, or that their wives are a punching bag, or their young daughters should be their sexual partners...you know, that kind of America, you all seem to forget, and don't want to change....but goddam, a same sex couple wanting to adopt a child, well @!$%#, that is Un-American....
Pathetic!
nah - sheep and a pair of rubber boots. Cow is too tall. Goats are reserved for the middle easterners /s
Angelica- A middle school debate teacher would tell you that invoking judgementalism and emotionally/inflammatory charged terms such as "bigot" and profanity shows that you do not have a strong argument and or it is failing. That is why you choose personal attacks instead of refuting a premise.
For those that easily dismiss the slippery slop argument when presented with a lack of an objective moral standard in society, how does that crap taste now that it's starting to hit the fan?
*slope
What is hitting the fan?
unbelievable.
And for all those arguing against Christianity because Christians here are speaking truth about homosexuality, it is significant to note that most major religions of the world, whether I agree with their faith or not, all agree that homosexuality is wrong. Christianity, Islam, Hindu, Buddhists, Mormons, Latter Day Saints, Judaism, ...
They don't argue against a specific religion, but because people at the most basic level don't want an objective moral standard to live by or be held accountable for their actions to anyone else but themselves.
XD Shooter,Religions did not require nor did they bring about the birth certificate.Man brought about the birth certificate.This article is about placing three adults names on a child's birth certificate.Religion nor a person's sexual predisposition have nothing to do with the judges decision.What if a child was abandoned on a doorstep and three people came upon that child.They go to court and all three people want to raise this child.Let's say they are three straight women and the abandoned child is female.Nobody can find any clue to who her birth parents are.Would it be ok if the judge allowed the adoption and all three names of the adoptive parents to be placed on the birth certificate?I don't see that any religious factions would have a problem with that nor would I.People posting are making the birth certificate issue to rant against gay people.I will defend your freedom of speech and others who are respectful but I feel that the judge did the right thing.My hat's off to these three adults who want to raise and be in this child's life.
Apparently, this is another delusional judge who thinks he's Solomon and is (figuratively) 'splitting' the child.
I'm not on the birth certificates of any of my children. I make their moms work for their child support. (when I can pay it)
funny
Freak show!
The US will absolutely self-destruct. Ha Ha.
Crazy, bad enough a kid has to explain two moms but this no two moms and a gay dad. If she turns out to be straight at least this will prove no gay gene.
I m with you about the gay gene thing. What I have read and seen, there has not been any proof of a gay gene found as of today.
If gets the rights of visitation (right of being recognized as the dad) then there should be financial responsibility. But this is not all that unusual. There have been open adoptions, surrogate parents, in vitro fertilization etc etc. that are "different" from the usual, but so what. If the child feels loved and is well cared for, the child will be fine. That's all that matters.
What's wrong here is America is changing so many things for a small amount of the population, homosexuals man or woman. 3 people on a birth certificate, come on already. Even if there were no homosexuals involved, the man donated the sperm he didn't have intercourse with the mother of the child. Should be once you donated, like blood you give it up period. In addition, I m confused by homosexuals wanting to have children. The desire to reproduce is in the gene make up of the homosexual?
How goddamn revolting.can't imagine why 'homophobic bigots' like me find this the epitome of disgusting.
This country is being increasingly led by idiots. I offer no argument. It is self evident. If you can't see that in this, your an idiot too.
as a former state child support case manager. this decison by this activist liberal stupid judge is going to cause the most lifelong legal wrangling in the family courts for many years to come. Not to mention when the child is of a age to uderstand that child most likley will need counseling or will be so pissed off for so called selfish adults to do this to him or her. I tell you it is why past time to brig these judges back in control and get them to stop with their crazy egos. I could write a book with all the nonsense that we had to put up with on a minute by miute basis due to child support judges making ad hoc policy changes from everything from the heading of the pleading motion to how to do audit which by the way if anyone wanted to do and take the time and money a huge class action law suit could be filed due to these ego driven judges forgetting or making interest changes that make non custodial parents pay more or less and thereby the custodial parent get less support. or the state is cheated out of interest money. Frankly it is a giant mess and it is all due to activist judges. these decison shoud be taken up on appeal and keep going all the way up to the supreme court. enough is enough, if the best interest of the child is to be first ad foremost them do not hang the selfishness of these crazy (meanspirited adults). I can bet up that when the time comes and if I was working the case, that child would be in tears begging me to fix the mess. So judges and selfish people stop doing this to children it mean.
Sick!!!!